RAMABAI Vs. HARBILAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court which has confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

(2.) RESPONDENT-PLAINTIFF Harbilas had filed a suit against deceased defendant Baboo Lal, the father of the appellants and respondent No. 2, for the restoration of possession of the two rooms and for mesne profits with the allegation that he had purchased the suit house from Baboo Lal. It was alleged that in the suit house at that relevant time one Devi Shankar was occupying two rooms. Later on those two rooms having been vacated by Devi Shankar, it was'alleged in the plaint that the two rooms were taken possession of by defendant Babu Lal. Since possession was not being handedover, hence the suit was filed.

(3.) THE suit of the plaintiff-respondent was dismissed by the trial Court and, therefore, an appeal bearing No. 89-A/71 was preferred by the respondent-plaintiff. The plaintiff had later on moved an application in the appeal under Order 6, Rule 17, C. P. C. stating that since one Panat was in actual possession of the rooms and was not impleaded as defendant in the Suit, he be allowed amend the plaint. The prayer of the plaintiff-respondent was allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside remanding the case back to the trial Court to proceed in accordance with law after the suit was amended by the plaintiff, and to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity to the parties of leading evidence.