APPARAO BABURAO SHINDE Vs. VITHAL GOVIND PADHYE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by Apparao the brother of the plaintiff, against the order of the Subordinate Judge, adding him, on the defendant's application, as a party. [After setting out the facts his Lordship proceeded.]

(2.) It is argued for the petitioner that it would be unjust to add him as a party at this stage and that the Courts had no jurisdiction,--the trial Court because this Court's order on remand did not expressly so authorise, this Court because Apparao was not a party in the lower Courts; and unjust because he not being a party could not adduce evidence to prove the nature of the deed and would now be bound by the decree though he had no opportunity of contesting the suit. Lastly, he cannot be added by reason of the finding on issue 7 that he was not a necessary party.

(3.) Order XLI, Rule 20, Civil Procedure Code, has no application. It is not this Court which adds him as a party but the trial Court. The trial Court can do so under Order I, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, at any stage of the proceedings. It is quite true that under Order XLI, Rule 20, Civil Procedure Code, an, appellate Court cannot add as a party to an appeal a person who was not a party to the suit: Shiam Lal, Joti Prasad V/s. Dhanpat Rai (1925) I.L.R. 47 All. 353 and Monjiram V/s. Manecklal (1928) 31 Bom. L.R 672.