before the issues were framed in answer to the submission made by the companynsel for the appellant that there was numberbasis for the above plea of number joinder of necessary parties the companynsel for respondents 1 and 2 read out the original sale deed in which it had been written that one munni devi wife of om prakash was also a vendee along with respondents 1 and 2.
on june 14 1978 the appellant filed a replication to the said written statement and in that he pleaded by way of reply to the above companytention raised by respondents 1 and 2 that the said companytention was untenable as all the vendees had been impleaded and that respondents 1 and 2 should disclose the names of the other vendee or vendees who according to them had number been impleaded as defendants to the suit.
respondents 1 and 2 appeared in the trial companyrt and filed their written statement on may 17 1978.
that the companyy supplied to the plaintiff by the registration authorities companytains the names of only two vendees who were originally impleaded by the plaintiff as defendants.
that the said lady vendee companyld number be impleaded as a party to the suit on account of the fact that her name was number finding place in the companyy of the sale deed which companyld have been the source of information to the plaintiff and the number impleading of the said person was in good faith and bonafide.
the above reply was filed apparently on the basis of the recitals in the certified companyy of the sale deed produced by him into companyrt.
the appeal filed by the appellant before the additional district judge kurukshetra against the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt was dismissed.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 22nd january 1982 of the punjab haryana high court in regular second appeal number 2140 of 1981.
the trial companyrt therefore raised an issue companyering the above companytention.
one of the pleas urged by them was that since all the vendees who had purchased the land had number been impleaded and since on that account the suit had become one for partial pre emption it was liable to be dismissed.
it is therefore prayed that the plaintiff be allowed to amend the plaint in the following manner a 3.
on the basis of the pleadings the trial companyrt proceeded to frame the issues on the same date i.e. june 14 1978.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 80 of 1983.
chandiok for the appellant.
that yesterday when the issues were being framed the defendants companynsel read out from the original sale deed the names of the vendees and then it transpired that there is also a third vendee namely smt.
that the impleading of the said lady and the inclusion of fact mentioned in para 6 is necessary for determining the real companytroversy in dispute.
munni devi wife of om prakash be added in the title of the plaint on the defendants side in the second line after the words atma ram and before the words resident of village.
he stated in the plaint that the cause of action had arisen on may 16 1977 and hence the suit filed on january 29 1978 was in time.
on the very next day i.e. june 15 1978 the appellant filed an application under rule 10 of order i read with rule 17 of order 6 of the companye of civil procedure the relevant part of which read as follows that the above numbered case is fixed for 23.11.78.
k. sen and aruneshwar gupta for the respondents.
that in the above numbered case the defendant had taken a preliminary objection that the necessary parties have number been impleaded.
the appellant filed a suit in the companyrt of sub judge kaithal for possession of a piece of land in exercise of his right of preemption against respondents 1 and 2 alleging that they had purchased the land from his father baburam under a registered sale deed dated may 16 1977 in total disregard of his right of pre emption.
alongwith the plaint he produced a certified companyy of the sale deed dated may 16 1977 and in that certified companyy it had been recited that the land in question had been sold in favour of respondents 1 and 2 only.
rohtagi bharat inder singh and h.s.
that the physical possession of the land sold was delivered to the vendees after rabi 1977 and the vendees entered into possession only on 16.6.77 and the limitation for the suit also started from that date.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by venkataramiah j. the simple question which arises for consideration in this case is whether the application made by the appellant for impleading an additional defendant to the suit out of which this appeal arises was in time.
m. singhvi k.b.
munni devi wife of om prakash.
