DAULAT RAM Vs. RAMA KANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Daulat Ram and Shyam Sunder Lal sons of Harbans Lal have filed this revision petition against the judgment and order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Ferozepore, dated 3rd August, 1971, by which the application filed by Rikhi Ram respondent under order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for being removed from the array of defendants and transposed as plaintiff in the suit, was allowed.

(2.) The admitted facts of this case which were given to me at the time of arguments by the learned counsel for the parties, are that Ram, defendant No. 2, and Harbans Lal, father of the petitioners, mortgaged two houses jointly in favour of Baisakhi Mal, father of respondents 3 and 4, for a sum of Rs. 6,000 on 12th November, 1921, that respondents 3 and 4 transferred their mortgagee rights in favour of Rama Kant son of Rikhi Ram, respondent No. 2 on 10th March, 1967, that the plaintiff-petitioners served a notice on Rikhi Ram calling upon him to join them in getting the house redeemed and on his failure to do so, they would redeem the entire property, that Rikhi Ram respondent No. 2, did not join the plaintiffs who on 26th August, 1969, filed a suit for possession of the property in dispute by redemption, that Rikhi Ram respondent No. 2, filed a written statement on 18th November, 1969, in which he supported the pleas of Rama Kant, that Rikhi Ram allowed the case to proceed against him ex parte as is clear from his counsel's statement dated 2nd June, 1970, to the effect that he had no instructions from his client to defend the case, that later on when some evidence had been recorded, Rikhi Ram filed an application on 29th June, 1970 for setting aside the ex parte proceedings, that application was dismissed as withdrawn on 4th July, 1970, and that a few days thereafter Rikhi Ram filed an application under Order 1, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying that he be transferred as plaintiff which, as earlier observed, was allowed by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view, that in the circumstances of this case, this petition deserves to be allowed.