SHYAMPATI Vs. MUNSHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT and respondents 2 to 7 are the defendants, whereas, respondent No. 1 is the plaintiff and respondents 8 and 9 are the proforma defendants and they will be referred to as such in this judgment. The appellant-defendant is aggrieved by the order dated 16.2.2000 passed by the District Judge, Shimla, whereby the appeal of the plaintiff was accepted and the decree and judgment dated 5.12.1997 of the Sub Judge 1st Class Court No. 2, Rohru, District Shimla was set aside and the case was remanded with a direction to afford a reasonable opportunity to the plaintiff to implead the legal heirs of Jiu Nath and Patu as party to the suit and thereafter try the same afresh. It is further directed that in case the plaintiff does not comply with the direction for the impleadment of legal heirs of said Jiu Nath and Patu, Trial Court may dismiss the suit by invoking the provisions of the proviso to Order 1 Rule 9 CPC.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed suit for declaration, inter alia, that he along with proforma defendants has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession and original defendant Balku, the predecessor-in-interest of defendants 2 to 5, has no right, title or interest to alienate or transfer the same to other defendants and also for permanent prohibitory injunction.

(3.) IN the replication filed by the plaintiff the averments made in the plaint were reiterated and if Padoo (Patu) were no more and their whereabouts were not known in the area for the last more than 20 years. On the pleadings of the parties issue No. 9 was framed, "Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ?"