PANDURANG RAMCHANDRA Vs. DOMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Pandurang Ramchandra sued the respondents Doma and Manaji in the Court of the first class Subordinate Judge, Nagpur, for possession of a house. Doma and Manaji filed an application to the effect that the house had been purchased by one Nilkanth and that they had no title thereto. Nilkanth was accordingly joined as a party and merely raised a preliminary plea to the effect that the proper Court-fees had not been paid. This question was adjudicated upon on 19th March 1926 and time was given for payment of Court-fees. In the meantime, on 7th April 1926, the fourth non-applicant, Mahipatrao, is alleged to have purchased the house in question from Nilkanth. After the purchase, there were two hearings on 29th April 1926 and 25th June 1926, but, as defendants 1 to 3 remained absent, the case was ordered to be heard on 24th July 1926. On that date one witness was examined and decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) MEANTIME , on the same date, the pen-dente lite purchaser Mahipatrao applied to the Court under Order 22, Rule 10, Civil P.C., asking to be made a party on the ground that he had an interest in the subject-matter of the suit. That application had no reasons recorded on the order thereon: it bears merely an endorsement "rejected" signed by the Subordinate Judge.

(3.) NOW , in the first place, although the order rejecting Mahipatrao's application was an unsatisfactory and laconic one, it is perfectly clear what the duty of Mahipatrao was. The order in question was passed under Order 22, Rule 10, Civil P.C., and under Order 43, Rule 1, Clause (4) an appeal lay against that order. No such appeal was filed by Mahipatrao and I have already remarked that, although the transfer in his favour was effected on the 7th April 1926, he remained absent and took no step whatever at the two intervening hearings and only filed an application to be made a party when the case was fixed for the ex-parte evidence of the plaintiff on 7th April 1926. In those circumstances, therefore, it seems to me that Mahipatrao had no locus standi whatever as an appellant against the judgment and decree which were passed. It is true that the three defendants joined with him in the appeal, but it must be remembered that as against them there was an ex-parte judgment and decree and it seems to me that it was not open to these defendants to raise the plea they did in the additional District Judge's Court in support of Mahipatrao's position: cf. Hummi v. Aziz-ud-Din [1917] 39 All. 143.