( 1 ) THIS revision petition is by the applicants in IA.-II of RA. 53 of 1974 before the Prl Civil Judge at Gulbarga. They are aggrieved by the order made on the said application, whereby their being brought on record as co- appellants (co-plaintiffs in the Court below) was refused.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts briefly are as follows; Respondent 1 herein (plaintiff in the trial Court) filed OS. 61 of 1971 on the file of the Munsiff at Chincholi for a decree of declaration of title and injunction. In the plaint she had clearly averred that she was suing not only for herself but also on behalf of her daughters, who are the applicants in IA.-II aforesaid, as they were all co-owners of the suit property. The suit was resisted by respondent 2 herein on various grounds which it is unnecessary to particularise. What is relevant is that no objection on the ground of non-joidnder of parties had betn raised by way of defence. The trial Court dealt with all the issues in the case and recorded its findings. It also concluded that the decree of declaration of title could not be grant d as the other corowners: had not been joined as parties. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff alone appealed to the learned Civil Judge in RA. 53 of 1974. Apparently with a view to cure the defect of non-joinder pointed out by the learned Munsiff, the present petitioners preferred an application under rule 10 (2) of Order 1 CPC. On behalf of the plaintiff-appellant, the application was not opposed, and, on the other hand, she was aggreable to the applicants in IA. II coming on record. On behalf of respondent 2 herein, however, The application" was opposed. The learned Civil Judge rejected the application (IA.-II) on the ground that it was belated, and if allowed it would lead to the framing of additional issues, 'thus rendering it necessary to afford a further opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence, and the same was impermissible when all the necessary issues had been framed and findings recorded. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners' have approached this Court,

( 3 ) ON behalf of the petitioners, a memo has been 'filed by their learned counsel, the material portion of which reads thus :" 2. The petitioners are seeking to come on record in order to cure an initial infirmity in the suit. The infirmity is that the suit being one for declaration of title and permanent injunction, the same could not have been brought by one of the co-o,wners in the absence of other co-owners. 3. The petitioners submit that they adopt the plaint filed by the plaintiff and stand by the evidence adduced by her in the case. They will not seek further opportunity to lead evidence on the ground that there was no occasion for them to do so earlier. However, the petitioners reserve their right to lead evidence if the decree is set aside and the suit is remanded on other grounds. "it is plain from the above memo that one of the grounds of objection referred to by the learned Civil Judge to the effect that it might necessitate a remand and re-trial of the suit, would no longer be available.

( 4 ) THE only other question that survives is one of delay. In this connection it is to be remembered that no objection on the score of non-joinder of parties had been raised by way of defence. On the other hand, the plaintiff had clearly stated in the plaint that she was suing on behalf of the present petitioners also, and therefore the relief of declaration prayed for by her should have been read in the light of such a specific plea. In these circumstances if the petitioners are taken unawares by the judgment of the learned Munsiff on the question of non-joinder, it cannot be said that the application IA.-II filed by them for the first time in appeal was in any manner belated. It is no doubt contended by Sri K. Appa Rao, the learned counsel for respondent 2 herein, that it would have been legal and proper if the appellant (plaintiff in the lower Court) had herself filed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document