MANGAT Vs. RAM PIARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-petitioner's application under Order 6 rule of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint by adding two more defendants therein as parties to the suit was rejected by the trial Court. That order is the subject matter of challenge in this revision petition.

(2.) Facts giving rise thereto are being noted to the bare minimum. Suit. Chawli, a widow, owned considerable agricultural land approximating 750 kanals. The plaintiff-petitioner is said to be related to Smt. Chawli on her husband's side. On the other hand, the defendants as also the two other persons sought to be added as defendants, are said to be related to Smt. Chawli on her parental side. On 8th March, 1976, Smt. Chawli is said to have suffered a decree in favour of Ram Piari defendant and her two children Rur Singh and Angrezo whereby she acknowledged having transferred 531 kanals 12 marlas of land in their favour. Later on 19th April, 1970, she is said to have executed a will regarding the remaining property in favour of Ram Piari. On the death of Smt. Chawli, the present suit was instituted by Smt. Manbhari, the predecessor-in-interest of the present plaintiff, claiming herself to be sister of the husband of Smt. Chawli. The relief claimed therein is for possession of the property in dispute. In the said suit only Ram Piari and one Chandgi were impleaded as parties. The two other decree-holders as beneficiaries under the decree were, however, omitted to be impleaded as defendants. The suit made considerable progress and was at the stage of defendants' evidence when the amendment application was made seeking impleading of the left out two decree-holders. The trial Court declined the prayer on the ground that the decree which was challenged in the suit was dated 8th March, 1976 and the suit was filed on 9th October, 1978 at a time when it was within the knowledge of the plaintiff that there were three decree-holders to the said decree and those should have been impleaded as defendants. The trial Court further took the view that since a decree could be challenged within a period of one year and the application had been made more than three years after the filing of the suit, the prayer made was highly belated and the suit against Rur Singh and Angrezo had become time-barred. It is this view of the matter which is now under challenge.

(3.) A healthy debate has ensued on the subject whether Article 59 or Article 65 of the Limitation Act would be applicable. Under the former Article, the period of limitation to cancel or set aside a decree is three years and the period is to be reckoned from the date when facts entitling the plaintiff to have the decree cancelled or set aside first become known to him. Though the trial Court has expressed in its order that the period of limitation was one year, but learned counsel for the parties are agreed that what it meant was a period of three years under Article 59. The learned counsel for the respondents says that this Article alone is applicable and the prayer for amendment has been made after a lapse of three years, as, at least on the date of the suit, the plaintiff had the knowledge about the decree and the parties thereto. On the other hand, the claim of the petitioner is that Article 65 is applicable for the relief claimed in the suit, which is for possession, and the period of limitation prescribed therefor is twelve years to be reckoned when the possession of the defendants becomes adverse to the plaintiff. The counsel have supported their respective contentions by judicial precedents, but I do not propose to dwell on them for the purposes of disposal of this petition.