SUNDER LAL Vs. RAM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS Sunder Lal and three others, who were defendants in the trial court, have filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.2.1980 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Narnaul, who dismissed the appeal of the appellants on the technical grounds that the defendants have not arrayed Kishan Lal, defendant No. 5, in whose favour the plaintiffs also claimed a decree, therefore, the appeal of defendants No. 1 to 4 is not legally maintainable and that the name of Kishan Lal could not be allowed to be added at that stage when defendants No. 1 to 4 filed an application for impleading Kishan Lal as a party to the appeal. The reasons of dismissal of the appeal on the technical ground are contained in paras 5 to 9 of the impugned judgment dated 11.2.1980 and are reproduced as under:-

(2.) THERE were three plaintiffs in the trial court, namely, Jug Lal, Ram Chander and Khem Chand. They filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction against Sunder Lal, Mange Ram, Mahabir, Nihal Singh by adding Kishan Lal as defendant No. 5 as a proforma. Notice of the suit was given and the suit was contested by defendants No. 1 to 4 and the learned trial court framed the following issues :-

(3.) AFTER recording the evidence the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 11.2.1980 came to the conclusion that the name of Kishan Lal could not be allowed to be added at that stage and, therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed. Resultantly, both the issues were decided against the appellants. Aggrieved by this decision, the present regular second appeal.