KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. DEVKI RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision is directed against the order of the trial court whereby application for amendment of the plaint in a pre-emption suit was allowed on payment of Rs. 1,000/- as costs.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that the plaintiff (respondent herein) filed suit for possession by way of pre-emption against defendant (petitioner herein) to pre-empt sale dated 2. 2. 1990. When an objection was taken by the defendant that the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties, an application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint to implead Devinder Kumar son of Bishamber Lai as defendant in the suit. Amendment was sought on the ground that it was only on perusal of the written statement that it came to the notice of the plaintiff that sale was made in favour of defendant Krishan Kumar as well as Devinder Kumar. According to the plaintiff, he could not array Devinder Kumar because in certified copy of the sale deed which he had obtained from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Ambala, Krishan Kumar alone was shown to be vendee of the land in dispute. Taking Krishan Kumar to be the only vendee, plaintiff arrayed him as the sole defendant. The mistake in not making Devinder Kumar a party was said to have occurred because of wrong supply of copy by the office of the sub-Registrar, Ambala, which was beyond the control of the plaintiff. In reply, the defendant stated that the plaintiff did not act in good faith and the amendment cannot be allowed in a pre-emption suit after the defendant has acquired the right on account of limitation. According to the defendant, the date the application was filed, suit, against Dayinder Kumar had become barred by time. On consideration of the respective stand of the parties, the trial court allowed the application for amendment and permitted the plaintiff to implead Devinder Kumar as one of the defendants. This order of the trial court is now being impugned in this civil revision.

(3.) MR. M. S. Jain, Senior Advocate, counsel for the petitioner contended that if the certified copy of the sale deed had been read by the plaintiff with due care and attention, he could have easily gathered that the sale was made in favour of two persons. According to him, plaintiff cannot be allowed to implead Devinder Kumar because on the date of the application, the period of limitation stood expired. In support of his contention, he referred to the case of Bhagwani Dass v. Kaushalya Rani, AIR 1981 Punjab and Haryana 196 (D. B. ).