JUDGMENT:- This is a plaintiffs second appeal in a suit for money.

2. The defendants respondents are the sons of one Chunnilal who had dealings with the plaintiffs. Chunnilal went into accounts with the plaintiffs on 17-4-1950, struck a balance entry and executed a Khata in their favour. As the defendants failed to pay the money due on the Khata, the plaintiffs brought this suit against Misrimal and Pukhraj, sons of Chunnilal, in the first instance. These defendants resisted the suit on the plea inter alia that there were two other sons of Chunnilal, namely, Parasmal and Heerachand who were necessary parties to the suit, and that it was not maintainable in their absence.

Thereupon the plaintiffs amended their plaint and impleaded the other two sons of Chunnilal as defendants also. Defendant No.4 Heerachand contended that he was a minor whereupon the plaintiffs withdrew their suit against him and removed his name from the plaint. The remaining defendants again contended that the suit as framed was bad for want of necessary parties. The trial court upheld this objection and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the learned Civil Judge affirmed the decision of the trial court by his judgment a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document