RAM DAS SINGH Vs. RAM ANUPLAL RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs second appeal. The point taken on behalf of the appellants is that the decree of the lower Court has been reversed by the Subordinate Judge without jurisdiction as the appeal was not properly constituted.

(2.) The original decree was in favour of the plaintiffs. For some reason or other, Ramcharitar Singh, who was plaintiff 5, was not made a party respondent in the lower appellate Court. In the circumstances, the decree passed by the lower appellate Court was without jurisdiction, and must be set aside. After the appeal was filed in this Court, by an order of Ray J., it was directed that the name of appellant 5 should stand in the memorandum of appeal with a statement added to it that he was plaintiff 6 in the trial Court but was not impleaded as respondent in the lower appellate Court. This is a special ground taken by the learned advocate in support of his objection to this effect. I am satisfied that the objection is well- founded, and must prevail.

(3.) Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad on behalf of the respondents drew my attention to an order in the order-sheet where it was stated that the notice of the appeal was served on plaintiff 5 on 21 September 1946. But this service of the notice on plaintiff 5 does not make him, in law, a party to the appeal unless Ramcharitar Singh was made: a party to the appeal. He was at liberty to ignore the notice which was served on him on 21 September. The decree passed by the lower Court omits the name of Ramcharitar Singh as respondent. As the memorandum of appeal has not been amended in the Court below, he could not be made a party in the decree that was prepared.