KUMARI KANCHNA Vs. BISHAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 25.10.2000 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class (2) Kangra whereby he has dismissed the application of the petitioners/plaintiffs (hereafter referred to as 'the petitioners') to implead Naresh Kumar Vijay Kumar, Sheela Devi and Urmila Devi as proforma respondents.

(2.) The petitioners have instituted a suit for declaration that the respondents/defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondents') have got no right or title to change the nature of the suit land comprising Khata No. 53 min, Khatauni No. 146, Khasra Nos. 985 and 988 measuring 0-01-33 hectares and Khata No 154, Khatauni No. 373, Khasra Nos. 986 and 987 measuring 0-00-90 hectares situate in Mohal Nerti, Tehsil and District Kangra and the entires in the revenue records showing respondent Bishan Dass as tenant of the land Khasra Nos. 985 and 988 on payment of rent of Rs. 5 to the petitioners/land owners are wrong as no tenancy was created by the petitioenrs in favour of the said respondent and for restraining the respondents from changing the nature of the suit land by making construction thereon or cutting trees therefrom. In the alternative, a decree for mandatory injunction for possession by way of demolition of structure has been prayed for. The said suit was admittedly instituted on 23.12.1989 and the respondents filed their written statement on 21.8.1990 wherein inter alia they took the objection qua misjoinder and non joinder of the parties. When The suit was at the stage of final arguments, the petitioners moved an application dated 29.9.2000 under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 and Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code for addition of parties and amendment of the plaint.

(3.) It has been averred in the application that names of Naresh Kumar, Vijay Kumar, Sheela Devi and Urmila Devi are shown in the column of ownership qua the suit land but they could not be joined as parties at the time of institution of the suit as proforma defendants. The respondents took the objection regarding non joinder of necessary parties and proper parties. Though there is no dispute with other co-sharers but with a view to avoid the controversy regarding no joiner of parties the application was filed to implead them It is further averred that addition of proposed parties and consequential amendment in the plaint is necessary for the just decision of the case.