SHYAM SINGH Vs. MOHINDER SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition the Petitioner (here -in -after referred to as the Plaintiff) has challenged the order dated 22.5.2010 whereby the learned Executing Court has dismissed the application under Order 21 Rule 32 filed by the Plaintiff.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that original Plaintiff Shyam Singh filed a suit against Balak Ram his son Mohinder Singh, Krishna wife of Mohinder Singh. During the pendency of the suit Balak Ram died. His widow Mugli Devi and his other sons Ramesh, Durga Singh and Rajpal were brought on record as his legal heirs and they were duly represented in the trial Court. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. The suit filed by Shyam Singh was dismissed by the learned trial Court.

(3.) IT appears that by inadvertence in the heading of the judgment name of Balak Ram continued to be shown as Defendant No. 1 and names of Durga Singh and Raj Pal were not reflected. Thereafter, the Plaintiff Shyam Singh filed an appeal and this appeal was also filed against original Defendants Balak Ram, Mohinder Singh, and Krishna. During the pendency of this appeal an application was moved by Shyam Singh to the effect that Mugli Devi (widow), Ramesh, Durga Singh and Rajpal had already been brought on record of the trial Court but by mistake in the memorandum their names were not reflected. It was, therefore, prayed that Balak Ram may be permitted to be sued through his legal representatives including the four persons named above. This application was taken up by the learned District Judge (Forest) on 21.2.2007 when the following order was passed: From the perusal of the record of the learned trial Court it appears that the application for brining on record the L Rs of Respondent No. 1 Sh. Balak Ram was allowed on 21.4.2003 by the learned trial Court and thereafter the amended head note of the plaint was not amended accordingly. The case be now put up on 28.2.2007 for further orders.