INDAR SINGH Vs. HAZARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition raises an interesting point concerning the power of a Court to add new parties. One Hari Singh disappeared from his village some forty-five years ago and the property belonging to him remained in the possession of his wife Mt. Khem Kaur. On 1-9-1944 Mt. Khem Kaur granted a lease in respect of a certain plot of land in favour of Hazara Singh and Inder Singh, two of the defendants in this case, and on the same day she executed a will bequeathing the said property in favour of Mangal Singh and Karnail Singh. A few days later, i. e., on 3-10-1944 Mt. Khem Kaur died and on 11-10-1944 Inder Singh and Sunder Singh who claim to be the collaterals of Hari Singh brought a suit for the possession of the property in question. This suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the plaintiffs were not reversioners of Hari Singh but the decision was set aside by the District Judge on 17-7-1946 on the ground that the plaintiffs were nearer reversioners of Hari Singh than the two sets of defendants. A second appeal was preferred from the order of the learned District Judge and on 11-7-1947 this appeal was dismissed by a Single Bench of the Lahore High Court. As a result of the decision of the High Court the case was

(2.) Mr. Harbans Singh Gujral who appears for the defendants raises two preliminary objections. The first is that it is not within the power of this Court to entertain a petition in revision when the Court below has exercised the discretion vested in it by R. 10 of O. 1, Civil P. C. The second is that as the order of the trial Court was passed on condition that the plaintiffs would be paid costs for the delay which had been occasioned in bringing the Khalsa High School on the record and as the plaintiffs had in fact drawn the money which was to be paid to them by way of costs they must be deemed to have acquiesced in the action that was taken by the Court below and cannot now be permitted to reopen the matter by way of revision.

(3.) Sub-rule (2) of R. 10 of O. 1, Civil P. C., provides that a Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. It is common ground that if the order passed by the trial Court can be said to have been passed in exercise of the powers conferred by this sub-rule no revision would be competent. Mr. Harbans Singh Doabia, however, contends that although the order purports to have been passed in exercise of the powers conferred by this sub-rule it was in fact not covered by the provisions of the said sub-rule.