HEM RAJ Vs. LAXMI NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal is posted today for disposal of an application moved by the appellants under O. XLI, sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rule 2-A of the said order read with S. 151, CPC for impleading the names of plaintiffs-Mansukh Lal and Panna Lal, both sons of Shiv Lal r/o Bali Dist. Pali in the array of respondents as respondents No. 4 and 5 but due to typographical error wrongly typed as respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in the said application.

(2.) Before proceeding to dispose of the present application on merit, it is observed that relief sought in the present application is not tenable either under Order XLI, sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 read with Rule 2-A of the said order or under S. 151, CPC. As a matter of fact, there is no existence of Rule 2A of Order XLI in the CPC.

(3.) Be that as it may, I take judicial notice of the fact in this regard that to meet such contingency as has arisen in the present second appeal Rule 20 of Order XLI, CPC is to be examined in extenso.