GELA RAM ETC. Vs. KAILASH NATH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Second Class, Fatehabad, allowing amendment of the plaint. Kailash Nath, Respondent, filed a suit for preemption challenging the sale of the suit property by his father in favour of Gela Ram, Harbans Lal, Ram Das and Ram Kishen. Besides these four vendees Amar Ditta was also one of the purchasers, but he had not been impleaded as a Defendant in the plaint, in the first instance, According to the sale deed dated. April 10, 1973, one half of the land, in dispute, was sold in favour of Gela flam and Harbans Lal and the remaining half was sold in favour of Ram Kishen, Ram Das and Amar Ditta. As stated above, the original suit was (sic) against the four vendees omitting the name 01 Amar (sic), vendee, The sale, in dispute, is (dated April 10, 1973. The suit was (sic) on February 27, 1974. The vendees -Defendants in their written statement filed on December 13, 1974, took a specific objection that all the vendees had not been impleaded and, therefore, the suit was likely to be dismissed as a case of partial pre -emption. The Plaintiff -Respondent, Kailash Nath, filed an application under order VI Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment of the plaint on December '26, 1974, for permission to implead the remaining vendee, Amar (sic), as one of the Defendants. The trial Court allowed the application and observed as follows:

(2.) MR . Ram Rang, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently urged that it is wrong that the Plaintiff -Respondent, Kailash Nath, made a bona fide mistake in not impleading one of the vendees as a Defendant. According to him, in the copy of the sale deed though the name of Amar Ditta as one of the vendees is not specifically mentioned, yet it has been clearly stated therein that one half land had been sold to Ram Kishen and Ram Das and that all the "three" will be entitled to the land in equal shares. A careful perusal of the copy of the sale deed should have put the Plaintiff -Respondent, Kailash Nath, on enquiry as to how and why the word "three" (meaning thereby that there were three purchasers and not two of one half land) had been mentioned and he (the Plaintiff -Respondent Kailash Nath) should have gone to the office of the Sub -Registrar to find out all the names of the vendees. It has further been urged that it is clear from the copy of the jamabandi attached to the plaint that a mutation in respect of the sale, in dispute, had also been sanctioned and the Plaintiff -Respondent, Kailash Nath, could very well verify the names of the vendees from the mutation and other relevant revenue record from the patwari. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on Jawala Dass and Ors. v. Gopal Lal and Des Raj and Ors. : A.I.R. 1925 Lah 343. In Jawala Das 's case (supra) also one of the vendees had not been impleaded as a party. The trial Court directed the Plaintiff to implead the vendee who had not been impleaded as a Defendant, but as he had been impleaded after the expiry of period of limitation, the suit was dismissed. In appeal, the District Judge held that the omission to implead one of the vendees was due to the wrong copy of the sale deed supplied to the Plaintiff by the Registration Department. Consequently, it was held that though the suit was barred by time at the time of amendment, there had been only a mere misdescription of the Defendants in the suit. In second appeal, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court was set aside and it was held as under: