The learned appellate Judge allowed that application and remanded the suit to the trial Court for a fresh trial.
That suit was substantially dismissed in the trial Court.
Yadav, his son were brought on record.
As against that decision the plaintiffs went up in appeal to the Senior Sub Judge, Delhi.
As against that decision defendants respondents went up in appeal to the High Court.
We shall first take up Civil Appeal No.
The fact that he was impleaded as party in the appeal was undoubtedly within the knowledge of the appellants.
In the High Court Lt.
This appeal arises from a suit instituted by one Surat Singh and others.
The plaintiffs therein claimed a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession of the suit premises.
During the pendency of the appeal in the High Court Surat Singh died and his legal representatives including Lt.
Civil Appeal No.
In the appellate Court the plaintiffs prayed for an amendment of the plaint.
Yadav was represented by a companynsel.
In that suit Surat Singh was the first plaintiff.
They sought to include therein a prayer seeking a mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to vacate the building.
Today an application has been filed for impleading him as a party respondent in the appeal.
610 of 1966 was brought against that decision of the High Court.
610 of 1966.
After hearing the companynsel for the parties we accept this preliminary objection and dismiss these appeals as having been hot properly instituted.
G.S. Yadav one of the parties to these cases at an earlier stage had number been impleaded.
