KALAWATI Vs. DHARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated August 29, 1990. In order to understand the controversy raised herein, it is necessary to notice few facts

(2.) AAD Ram son of Raman, plaintiff appointed Dharam Singh defendant respondent as his attorney in respect of the suit land on May 13. 1983. Dharam Singh as his attorney executed a lease deed in favour of his wife Smt. Azad Kaur. Thereafter, Aad Ram filed a suit for declaration to the effect that general power of attorney No. 59 dated May 13,1983 executed by him in favour of defendant No. 1, Dharam Singh was wrong, against law and facts and being based on fraud has no effect on his rights and consequently the registered lease deed dated June 6, 1983 executed on the basis of the foresaid general power of attorney by defendant No, 1, Dharam Singh in favour of his wife Smt. Azad Kaur was also wrong, against law and facts, non-existent and thus, had no effect on his (Aad Ram plaintiff) rights Smt. Kalawati and others, now petitioner moved an application in the said suit, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Cede of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as parties to the suit alleging that they were the owners of the suit land to the extent of half share. This application was allowed and they were impleaded as defendants in the suit by order dated February 4, 1988. This order became final and consequently they filed written statement. Bhararo Singh and his wife, the original defendants moved an application seeking permission to file written statement of the claim made by the added defendants in their written statement. The trial Court by order dated May !6, 1988 rejected this application. Aggrieved by this order, Dharam Singh and his wife filed Civil Revision No. 18] 1 of 1988 in this Court which was disposed of by J. V. Gupta, J. (as his Lordship then was) on August 11, 1989. The revision was allowed and orders dated February 4, 1988 and May 16, 1988 were set aside. It was ordered that defendants 3 to 8 (the added defendants) may be added as plaintiffs to the suit if the original plaintiff (Aad Ram) had no objection and that in case, the added defendants are allowed to be impleaded as plaintiffs, the original defendants 1 and 2 would be entitled to file their written statement to the plea taken by the formers (added plaintiffs) The matter again happened to be considered by the trial Court and the added defendants, Smt. Kalawati and others were arrayed as plaintiffs as the original plaintiff (Aad Ram) had no objection to their being so arrayed. An amended plaint was filed wherein the added plaintiffs as well made their claim. At this juncture, defendants Dharam Singh and his wife took exception to the filing of the amended plaint and incorporating therein the claim by the added plaintiffs. This objection of the defendants found favour with the trial Court which by order dated August 29, 1990 observed that the plaintiffs were not allowed to incorporate fresh pleas of relief, description of suit property and demarcation and identification of the suit property either by numbers or by location.

(3.) IT is against this order of the trial Court, the added plaintiffs have filed the present revision.