PARAMJIT SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE LUDHIANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 9/02/1991, vide which an application filed by the plaintiffs, under Order XLI, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission to implead as respondents the original defendants Nos. 5 to 17 (inclusive of the present petitioners) who were party to the suit could not be impleaded as respondents in the appeal, was allowed.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present revision may briefly be noticed. Parmatma Singh and Kartar Singh, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, filed a suit for declaration against Atma Singh, Narinder Singh, Manjit Singh and Saranjit Kaur. During the pendency of the suit, defendant Nos. 5 to 17 were impleaded by way of an amendment. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed vide judgement and decree passed on that behalf by the trial Court on 21/10/1987. The plaintiffs, who are respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the present petition, being aggrieved against the judgement and decree passed by the trial Court, carried an appeal on 19/03/1988, before the District Judge, Ludhiana, which came up for disposal before the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. However before the matter could be taken on merits, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order XLI, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 18/01/1991 so as to implead as respondents, the original defendant Nos. 5 to 17, who as referred to above, were impleaded in the suit by way of amendment. It is no doubt true that the application aforesaid was filed when limitation to file appeal against defendant Nos. 5 to 17 had already expired. The ground, on which the prayer, referred to above, was successfully made out, was that in the Memorandum of Appeal the names of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 only had been mentioned, whereas the names of defendant Nos. 5 to 17 (in the suit) could not be incorporated as the error arose on account of the fact that the certified copy of the judgement, delivered to the plaintiff-appellants by the Copying Department, did not mention the names of defendant Nos. 5 to 17. The parties were impleaded by taking the names from the copy of judgement. It was further made out in the application aforesaid that the omission that defendant Nos. 5 to 17 were not impleaded as respondent in the appeal came to the knowledge of the plaintiff-appellants only when Atma Singh applied for stay on 16/01/1991. In brief, it is the error committed by the Copying Agency in preparing the certified copy of the judgement supplied to the plaintiff-appellants, that was stated to be the main ground for giving permission so as to implead defendant Nos. 5 to 17 as respondents in the appeal even though the time for filing appeal against them had already expired. As referred to above, it is this application, which was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, on 9/02/1991 and, therefore, the present revision has been filed by Paramjit Singh, Sarabjit Singh and Karamjit Singh, who were defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 7, respectively, in the suit.

(3.) Mr. Jagmohan Singh Chowdhary, learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the order under revision has taken me through the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure and from the reading thereof his contention is two-fold. Firstly, he maintains that where a decree has been passed in favour of a person or a suit has been dismissed against a person and the period of limitation for appeal has expired, he cannot be deemed as interested in the result of appeal filed in the case pending between other persons who were parties to the litigation in the lower Court. Therefore, such a person cannot be said to be interested in the result of the appeal after expiry of period of limitation and that he cannot be impleaded as party-respondent in appeal as prayed in the application filed by the other side, under Order XLI, Rule 20, C.P.C. His second and of course last contention is that since the certified copy of the decree-sheet contained the names of all the defendants whether originally sued or impleaded later, then the mere fact that the names of defendants 5 to 17 were not mentioned in the certified copy of the judgement would not provide sufficient cause to the plaintiff-appellants to ask for impleading of such persons, who were originally not arrayed in the Memorandum of Appeal. In support of his first contention, the learned counsel relies upon Paras Ram v. Maharaj Ekling Singhji, AIR 1985 Raj 236, whereas for the other proposition reliance has been placed upon Ramphal v. Kharak Singh, 1974 Rev LR 353 (Punj and Har), State of Haryana v. Om Prakash, 1979 Pun LJ 448, and Gurbhagat Singh v. Karam Singh, 1981 Rev LR 17 (Punj and Har). Before commenting upon the various contentions raised by the learned counsel, it shall be useful to reproduce the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 20, C.P.C., which run thus :- 20. Power to adjourn hearing and direct persons appearing interested to be made respondents :-