HANUMAN Vs. SHAKRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application by the defendant-respondents against an order of the appellate Court impleading Fattu, plaintiff, as a respondent under Order 41, rule 20, C. P. C.

(2.) SHAKRU and Fattu filed the present suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from opening doors on a piece of land of which Shakru and Fattu claimed to be co-owners. The suit was dismissed on 3-8-68 by the Munsif on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their ownership of the land. Shakru alone filed an appeal on 2-9-68. He did not join Fattu even as a respondent. The defendants filed an objection that the appeal was incompetent as fattu had not been impleaded either as an appellant or as a respondent. This objection was filed on 29-10-68. Long after the expiry of the period of limitation Shakru filed an application on 2-5-69 that Fattu was a necessary party and should be impleaded as a respondent under Order 41, Rule 20, C. P. C. read with Section 151, C. P. C. This application was allowed by the appellate Court on 7-2-70.

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the applicants that Order 41, Rule 20, C. P. C. contemplates that there should be a competent appeal before the appellate Court and an incompetent appeal cannot be converted into a competent one by the exercise of power under this provision. Reliance was placed on the decision in badri Narain v. E. I. RIy. Co. , AIR 1927 Pat 23.