SUDARSHAN KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. NARINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this order the parties are referred to by their original positions in the suit. Plaintiffs have brought this revision challenging the order dated July 15, 2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur partly allowing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC to the extent that the plaintiff was permitted to amend the plaint by furnishing particulars, names and addresses of the plaintiffs left blank in the memo of parties and to that extent leave has been granted by the learned trail court to amend the cause title.

(2.) Beyond that, by a glaring omission, the five plaintiffs were clubbed loosely together without differentiating their personal identities and their addresses for purposes of summons on the suit. All five were clubbed together by the counsel as sons and daughters of late Kunj Lal Gupta, resident of Mohalla Adarsh Nagar, Mandi Gurdaspur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur and that too without naming them separately as plaintiffs 1 to 5. This omission in the plaint has been ordered to be corrected by the court a quo and rightly so.

(3.) There was yet another terrible lacuna left in the headnote of the plaint which is ex facie self-explicit and which does not disclose the primary nature of the relief sought in the suit as one of declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated July 31, 2007 executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant of the house marked in red ink as A, B, C, D on the site plan described therein with consequential relief of possession of the suit property duly reflected in the plaint which is a fatal mistake left by the lawyer who did not pay due attenttion to the pleadings.