AMAR SINGH Vs. POORAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 1 instituted a suit for restoration of possession and mesne profits against one Amrit who is stated to have died on 5-2-90 his widow Sarju bai was substituted in his place who also died issueless on 16-5-93.

(2.) ON 25-7-96 an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of Civil procedure Code was submitted. Another application under Order 22 Rule 4 of civil Procedure Code was submitted. Both these applications were decided by the learned Trial Judge on 24-2-01. Consequently, the suit filed against Amrit was declared to have abated on account of death of Sarju Bai in an issueless condition. Simultaneously, the learned Trial Judge directed the plaintiffs to implead Mahesh Kumar and Sriram, both minor sons of Amar Singh as defendants. The order of impleadment was not given effect to. The plaintiffs challenged the order of abatement against Sarju Bai in C. R. No. 934/01, wherein amar Singh, Sriram and Mukeksh Kumar were impleaded as defendants, as revealed in the order dated 8-7-02 marked as Annexure P-3. This court vide annexure P-3 dismissed C. R. No. 934/01 for want of prosecution.

(3.) SINCE the order of impleadment of present petitioners was not given effect to by the plaintiffs in time, the plaintiffs/respondents submitted an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code seeking leave to incorporate the names of the present petitioners in the cause title of the plaint. This application was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge on 22-11-00 vide annexure P-4. Simultaneously, the learned Trial Judge observed that on account of failure on the part of the plaintiffs to implead Mahesh, Sriram, both sons of Amar Singh, in the plaint, the suit was liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same was dismissed vide Annexure P-4.