DINA NATH DHAR Vs. PT MAKHAN LAL DHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application directed against an order of the District Judge arises out of the following circumstances:

(2.) RADHA Krishen Dhar filed a suit against Dina Nath and others for recovery of Rs. 2400/ - on tile basis of a pronote. The plaintiffs suit was dismissed. The plaintiff died and his two sons, Makhan Lal and Vijay Kumar and widow, Smt. Radha Mali filed an appeal before the District Judge. During the pendency of the appeal an application was made by the respondents on 22 -2 -1962 that Prithvi Nath was a necessary party and may be impleaded as an appellant in the appeal. This application was resisted by the appellants on the ground that Prithvi Nath was not a legal representative of Radha Krishen deceased and it was not necessary to implead him. The parties led evidence on the issue whether or not Prithvi Nath was legal representative of the deceased. Prithvi Nath himself appeared on behalf of the appellants and stated that he was not a legal representative of Radha Krishen deceased, and that he was adopted by his grand father, Bhagwan Das and that he had no interest in the assets left by Radha Krishen. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that Prithvi Nath not being legal representative of the deceased the omission of his name from the appellants does not affect the appeal. The application made by the defendant was dismissed and hence this revision.

(3.) IT is argued on behalf of the defendants petitioners that the mere fact that Prithvi Nath, did not choose to be impleaded as an appellant m the appeal would not absolve the appellants from the liability to implead him as legal representative of the deceased; their failure to bring him on the record as legal representative of Radha Krishen is fatal to the appeal. My attention was drawn to Order 22, Rule 5, C. P. C. which reads as under: