KALLOO Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF background of the case is that plaintiff-respondent No.2, Nafeesul Rehman son of Habeebulla, instituted original suit No.473 of 1986 before the trial court praying therein for specific performance of contract of sale against defendant-appellants, who claim themselves to be bona fide purchaser without notice during pendency of suit. Said suit was decreed on 05.08.1996. Against the said judgment and decree Zameer Ahmad, the defendant respondent, and Kalloo and Jumma, defendant-petitioners preferred Civil Appeal 368 of 1998 before the lower appellate Court. During pendency of aforesaid appeal, defendant-appellant No.1 Zameer Ahmad died on 22.06.2005, leaving behind Zubaida and Mohd.Tariq as his heirs and legal representatives. Petitioners claim that substitution application was moved for substitution of their names. On 23.09.2005 Nafeesul Rehman filed objection contending therein that three daughters of the deceased defendant were also required to be impleaded in the appeal besides two sons Zubaida and Mohd. Tariq. On the said objection being raised, the petitioners claim that after acquiring about existence of three daughters of the deceased defendant-appellant No.1, they moved application praying for amendment of substitution application by including the names of three daughters of the deceased-appellant. On 25.05.2009 the said application for amendment in substitution has been rejected. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) SRI Sidharth, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that in the present case lower appellate court has totally misdirected itself in law in not allowing the application, as in absence three daughters of the deceased appellant being impleaded and substituted, the rights of the defendant-petitioners would be adversely affected, and in this background, the judgment and order of the lower appellate court is liable to set aside.