Judgment Jagat Narayan, CJ.-This is a revision application by the defendant-respondents against an order of the appellate Court impleading Fattu, plaintiff , as a respondent under Order 41, Rule 20, CPC

2. Shakruand Fattu filed the present suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from opening doors on a piece of land of which Shakru and Fattu claimed to be co-owners. The suit was dismissed on 3-8-68 by the Munsif on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their ownership of the land. Shakru alone filed an appeal on 2-9-68. He did not join Fattu even as a respondent. The defendants filed an objection that the appeal was incompetent as Fattu had not been impleaded either as an appellant or as a respondent. This objection was filed on 29-10-68. Long after the expiry of the period of limitation Shakru filed an application on 2-5-69 that Fattu was a necessary party and should be impleaded as a respondent under Order 41, Rule 20, CPC read with Section 151, CPC This application was allowed by the appellate Court on 7-2-70.

3. Itis contended on behalf of the applicants that Order 41, Rule 20, CPC contemplates that there should be a competent appeal before t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document