(1.) This suit was brought by the plaintiff against the Talukdari Settlement Officer of that time, Mr. Bhimbhai, to recover damages for certain alleged wrongful acts performed by the defendant in the recovery of certain cesses, which he alleged to be due from the plaintiff.
(2.) Before the suit had proceeded far, it appears that the Talukdari Settlement Officer, through his pleader, applied that the Thakor of Sanand and Koth, whose agent he (the Talukdari Settlement Officer) was, in these proceedings, should be joined as a necessary party. The District Judge of Ahmedabad raised a preliminary issue and held that the Thakor of Sanand and Koth was a necessary party to the proceedings. He was accordingly joined; but no amendment appears to have beenmade of the plaint and no further relief claimed against the Thakor, who then stood on the record as the second defendant.
(3.) During the pendency of the litigation Mr. Bhimbhai died. His successor in the office of the Talukdari Settlement Officer was then put upon the record in his place. It is to be observed in connection with this brief history of this case that the results have been a little startling and we think a little irregular.