Swatanter Kumar,.J.

1. This regular first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31st March; 01 vide which the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 2,37,696/- being suit No. 48/96 was dismissed on the ground of non joinder of parties. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellants also filed an application being CM No. 1106/01 under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this application, the prayer is that the cause title of the appeal be permitted to be amended and the members of the respondent/trust be permitted to be impleaded as party/respondents and/or in alternative the judgment and decree be set aside and suit remanded for fresh trial.

2. This application has been filed primarily to overcome the defect of non-joinder of necessary parties in the suit so that suit of the plaintiff be not dismissed and upon amendment may be decreed in accordance with law. The applicants have filed the present application to correct the said defect.

3. This application as well as the appeal is contested by the respondents on merits as well as on maintainability. According to them, the suit of the plaintiff was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that issue has been correctly decided by the Trial Court and if the application of the appellant for impleadment is allowed, it will amount to serious prejudice to the rights of the respondents. The claim of the plaintiff against the defendants/respondents, now sought to be impleaded, has already become barred by time.

4. The necessary facts are that plaintiff is a registered contractor with the Central Public Works Department for labour work of building and sanitary work and have been doing the said work and other ancillary work thereof for quite some time. The defendant is a charitable trust which is registered and it is running a hospital namely Saroj Charitable Hospital situated at Madhuban Chowk, Rohini, Delhi. The plaintiff had approached the defendant for completion of the sanitary work and sewer line work. An agreement was signed between the parties which was signed by the plaintiff and on behalf of the defendant by Mr. Pawan Kumar, the Trustee. One Mr. T.S.Bindra was appointed as Architect. The agreement was executed on 26th February, 1994. Thereafter, according to the plaintiff, he had been working to the satisfaction of the defendant and the work was verified by the Architect and the defendant. The plaintiff submitted a bill of Rs. 4,98,296/- on 5th March, 1995 and other bills dated 8.5.95 for a sum of Rs. 22,250/-. All these bills, according to the plaintiff, were duly verified by the' Architect but the defendant only paid a sum of Rs. 2,83,120/- thus leaving the balance of Rs. 2,37,696/-. The plaintiff called upon the defendant to pay, the said amount and even visited their office several times but no payment was received by the plaintiff and' the defendant only made false promises. The plaintiff served a legal notice dated 1.8.96 upon the defendant , demanding the said amount. In response to that no payment was received nor any reply was submitted. The plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of the said amount. The suit was contested by the defendants who disputed the claim on merits and stated that in terms of Clause 7 of the agreement dated 26.2.94 entered into between the parties, the payment was to be made only when the bills were duly certified by the Architect and nothing was due to the •plaintiff. The defendants have also took a preliminary objection that all the trustees are necessary parties to the suit and as the plaintiff has not impleaded all the trustees, the suit was bad for non joinder of the parties and deserve to be dismissed Vide its order dated 4th November; 1997, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:

1. "Whether the, suit is not maintainable as per preliminary objection No. I? OPD 2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled

Click Here to Read the rest of this document