STATE Vs. UMRAV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD, learned counsel for the parties on application filed by the appellant under Sec. 151 read with Order 1, Rule 10 CPC.

(2.) THE appellant submitted that due to bona fide mistake the appellant impleaded respondent Sheikh Sharif Ali S/o Mulla Ali Mohammed as respondent No. 2. In the decree-sheet after the name of Sheikh Sharif Ali, the word `bajay" was mentioned and thereafter, the name of Hakimudeen S/o Mulla Mohammad Hussain was mentioned. While preparing the memo of appeal, the word "bajay" could not be noticed. As a matter of fact, since Sheikh Sharif Ali died before the decree was passed in the original suit, the name of Hakimudeen S/o Mulla Mohammad Hussain may be shown in place of Sheikh Sharif Ali as respondent No. 2. Hence, the appellant wrongly impleaded deceased Sheikh Sharif Ali instead of hakimudeen, therefore, he has requested that appellant may be permitted to implead hakimudeen as a party respondent in place of Sheikh Sharif Ali. This application was filed by the appellant on 28. 08. 2001.

(3.) HERE, in this case, the explanation given by the appellant is that in decree-sheet as quoted above, the name of the deceased was clearly mentioned and the deceased was impleaded as party. The word "bajaya" at the back of the decree-sheet and that was because of confusion.