PURAN SINGH Vs. GEHAL SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN March, 1959, one Amar Singh sold agricultural land in favour of Gehal Singh, Mehal Singh and Maghar Singh. In April, 1965, Puran Singh brought a suit for possession of the land, covered by the sale deed, on the ground that his father Amar Singh had no authority to sell the land which was ancestral without consideration and legal necessity and the said sale was, therefore, not binding on his reversionary interests. The suit was brought against Gehal Singh, Mehal Singh and Smt. Shanti alias Banti,, widow of Maghar Singh, he having died in the meantime. Puran Singh impleaded his sister, Surinder Kaur, also as a Defendant in the case.

(2.) THIS suit was resisted by the vendees, but after trial the same was dismissed on 20th of June, 1966. Against that decision, Puran Singh filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, on 19th of July, 1966. The appeal was filed against Gehal Singh, Mehal Singh, Inder Singh, Amar Singh and Surinder Kaur. That means that Shanti's name was omitted from the list of Respondents and in her place the names of Inder Singh and Amar Singh were included. In January, 1967, before the appeal was heard, an application was filed by Puran Singh under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the amendment of the memorandum of appeal by deleting the names of Inder Singh and Amar Singh and adding the name of Smt. Shanti alias Banti, the ground given for making that application was that the memorandum of appeal had been drafted on the basis of the certified copies of the judgment and the decree -sheet prepared by the trial court. There, the name of Smt. Shanti had been eliminated and the names of Inder Singh and Amar Singh had been mentioned. The mistake on his part, therefore, according to him, was bona fide.

(3.) THIS application was rejected by the learned Additional District Judge on the ground that the mistake on the part of the Plaintiff in the drafting of the memorandum of appeal could not be considered as bona fide, but it was due to carelessness and there were no valid reasons for permitting the Plaintiff to add the name of Shanti as a Respondent after the period of limitation had expired. He, however, directed that the names of Inder Singh and Amar Singh be deleted from the memorandum of appeal, as that could be done at any time.