NAND RAM Vs. KARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON March 3, 1975, the plaintiff--petitioner filed a suit for pre-empting the sale effected on March 7, 1974, in favour of three vendees all of whom were minors. Not knowing about their minority the plaintiff did not describe them as such in the plaint. When sum monses were issued to the vendee-respondents it was reported back that they were minors. Thereupon the plaintiff made an application on April 5, 1976, for leave to amend the plaint. The amendment sought was:- (1) to add the word 'minors' after the names of the vendee-defendants and to add thereafter the words 'ba-sarprasti Dandi Ram pita khud under the guardianship of their father Dandi Ram" and (2) to add para 5 (A) in the plaint after the existing para 5, wherein it was intended to be stated that the three vendee-defendants are minors and they live with their father Dandi Ram whose interest is not adverse to that of minors and that Dandi Ram is entitled to be appointed as their guardian. The plaintiff also filed a separate application under O. 32, R. 3 of the Code for appointing Dandi Ram as the guardian ad litem of the minor defendants. Both the applications were resisted on behalf of the vendees on the ground that the limitation for filing the suit in exercise of the right of pre-emption had expired on march 7, 1975, and that inasmuch as the two applications were made in April, 1976, these could not be allowed. By this order dated August 7, 1976, Shri V. P. Choudhry, Sub-Judge First Class, Narwana, has dismissed both the applications on the same ground. Not satisfied with that order the plaintiff has come up to this Court for revision thereof.

(2.) MR . M. S. Jain, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner, has submitted that the entire approach of the trial Court to the question before it was contrary to law inasmuch as the non-disclosure of the minority of the defendants in the plaint is not fatal to the suit and an application for appointment of the guardian ad litem of minor defendants can be made after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing the suit. It is not disputed that the names and particulars of the vendees have been correctly given in the plaint. What is missing in the plaint is only the requirement of O. 7, R. 1 (d) of the code which states that the plaint of a suit shall contain the following particulars- Order VII, 1.

(3.) FOR the foregoing reasons, I allow this petition, set aside the orders of the trial Court dated August 7, 1976, and allow both the applications of the plaintiff-petitioner and grant him leave to amend the plaint to the extent indicated verbatim in the application under O. 6, R. 17 of the Code and appoint Dandi Ram as guardian of the minor defendants for the purpose of the suit from which this petition has arisen. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Parties have been directed to appear before the trial Court on April 4, 1977.