Judgment

VENKATARAMAIH, 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.

2. The appellant filed a suit in the Court of Sub Judge, Kaithal for possession of a piece of land in exercise of his right of pre-emption 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. He stated in the plaint that the cause of action had arisen on May 16, 1977 and hence the suit filed on Jan. 29, 1978 was in time. Along with the plaint he produced a certified copy of the sale deed dated May 16, 1977 and in that certified copy it had been recited that the land in question had been sold in favour of respondents 1 and 2 only. Respondents 1 and 2 appeared in the trial Court and filed their written statement on May 17, 1978. One of the pleas urged by them was that since all the vendees who had purchased the land had not been impleaded and since on that account the suit had become one for partial preemption, it was liable to be dismissed. 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 contention raised by respondents 1 and 2 that the said contention 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 not been impleaded as defendants to the suit. The above reply was filed apparently on the basis of the recitals in the certified copy of the sale deed produced by him into Court. On the basis of the pleadings the trial Court proceeded to frame the issues on the same date i. e. June 14, 1978. Before the issues were framed in answer to the submission made by the counsel for the appellant that there was no basis for the above plea of non-joinder of necessary parties the counsel 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. The trial Court, therefore, raised an issue covering the above contention. On the very next day i.e. June 15, 1978 the appellant filed an application under Rule 10 of O. I read with R. 17 of O. 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the relevant part of which read as follows :

"1. That the abovenoted case is fixed for 23-11-78.

2. That in the abovenoted case the defendant had taken a preliminary objection that the necessary parties have not been impleaded.

3. That the copy supplied to the plaintiff by the registration authorities contains the names of only two vendees who were originally impleaded by the plaintiff as defendants.

4. That yesterday when the issues were being framed, the defendants counsel 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, Munni Devi, wife of Om Prakash.

5. That the said lady vendee could not be impleaded as a party to the suit on account of the fact that her name was not finding place in the copy of the sale deed, which could have been the source of information to the plaintiff; and the non-impleading. of the said person was in good faith and bona fide.

6. 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.

7. That the impleading of the said lady and the inclusion of fact mentioned in para 6 is necessary for determining the real controversy in dispute.

It is therefore prayed that the plaintiff be allowed to amend the plaint in the following manner :-

(a) "3. Smt. Munni Devi, wife of Om Prakash" be added in the title of the plaint on the defendants side in the second line