NACHHATTAR KAUR Vs. MADHO DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7.3.1986 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class Chandigarh, dismissing an application of the petitioner under Order 1 rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure ( hereinafter called 'the code') for being brought on the record of the suit as plaintiff No. 2.

(2.) The facts in brief are that Ram Singh, husband of the petitioner, filed the instant suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant respondents Nos. 1 to 3 from making any addition/alteration in the structural plan or raising any type of construction on the plot described as ABCD in the plan attached with the plaint. He alleged that he had purchased the property in dispute from its previous owner Mst. Charan Kaur for a consideration of Rs. 21,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 2.11.1982. The said repondents denied the allegation madae in the plaint and questioned the locus standi or Ram Singh to maintain the suit. Thereupon, the petitioner filed an application stating that she had purchased the proporty in dispute vide registered sale deed dated 2.11.1982 through her husband Ram Singh plaintiff from the previous owner Asst. Charan Kaur, and that it was because of inadvertence that the suit had been brought on behalf of Ram Singh. She thus prayed that she may be brought on the record as plaintiff.

(3.) The learned trial Court has not doubted the ascertain of the petitioner that it was because of in advertence that the original suit had been brought in the name of Ram Singh, husband of the petitioner, nor has it reached at a conclusion that the substitution of the petitioner as a plaintiff or her addition as plaintiff No.2 is not necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute. All that has been said in the order under revision is that for the decision of the controversy in suit between Ram Singh plaintiff and respondents Nos.1 to 3, the addition of the petitioner as a party is not necessary. In my view, the learned trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity and its order cannot be sustained.