R.S. VERMA, J.—Ali Mohd., Lal Khan and Gulam Mohd. brought a suit against present appellant Lala in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Churu, for recovery of arrears of rent and possession of a "bari" on the averments that Lal had taken the aforesaid "bari" with a well on rent from them on 28.11.67 at a monthly rent of Rs. 5/-. The lease was to expire on 31.3.68. A "kirayanama" was executed on 28.11.67. The defendant did not pay any rent. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs required the "bari" for their own use. A notice of termination of tenancy was sent to the defendant on 17.3.69, which was received by the defendant on 18.3.69 but he neither paid rent nor vacated the bari and the well,

2. The suit was resisted by the defendant, who traversed the claim of the plaintiffs. He denied that he had ever taken on rent the suit "bari" or the well. It was pleaded that thumb impression of the defendant was obtained by the plaintiff Ali Mohd. by playing fraud on him. On such pleas, it was prayed that the suit may be dismissed.

3. The suit had a chequered history. Eventually the suit travelled to the Court of Munsif, Churu who decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide his judgment and decree dated 18.5.72.

4. Aggrieved against the decree of ejectment and recovery of rent the present appellant Lala filed a first appeal before learned Addl. District Judge, Churu. This appeal was transferred to the Court of learned Civil Judge. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent no. 2 Ali Modh. expired and his legal representatives, eight in number were brought on record. These included respondent no. 2/2, who was already in the array of respondents as respondent no. 3.

5. Learned Civil Judge after hearing both the sides, partially allowed the appeal He set aside the decree passed in favour of Lal Khan and Gulam Mohd.

6. It appears that due to over-sight or inadvertence, learned Civil Judge in the heading of the judgment of the appeal as also in the operative part of the judgment, mentioned that the suit was being decreed in favour of appellant Ali Mohd., since then deceased. Neither the title of the judgment nor the operative part of the judgment mentioned the names of the legal representatives of the deceased Ali Mohd., who had already been brought on record. Learned Civil Judge went to the extent of saying in his judgment that the suit was being decreed in favour of Ali Mohd. This was absolutely a mis-statement and shows callous negligence on the part of the Presiding Officer, who rendered the judgment dated 31.1.77. Actually the suit was decreed in favour of Ali Mohd. by the trial court itself and there was no occasion for the learned Civil Judge to pass a fresh decree in favour of Ali Mohd., who had already expired.

7. Be that as it may, appellant Lala filed present appeal. A certified true copy of the decree sheet was filed, which recited all that what had been recorded in the operative portion of the judgment.

8. Appellant Lala filed this appeal against Lal Khan, Ali Mohd. (wrongly mentioned as Ala Mohd.) and Gulam Mohd. even though Ali Mohd. had died long back.

9. After the appeal had been filed, learned counsel for the appellants realised that legal representatives of deceased AH Mohd. had not been impleaded in this second appeal even though they had been impleaded before the first appellate court. Hence, on 28.3.78, an application was moved by the learned Advocate for the appellants briefly reciting the fact that Ali Mohd. had died on 10.11.72; his legal representatives had been impleaded before the lower appellate court. It was prayed that the various persons mentioned in the application be impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased Ali Mohd. because presence of all of them were necessary for the just decision of the appeal. An apprehension was voiced that the decree in favour of Ali Mohd might otherwise be a nullity.

10. It is curious that this application was not pressed with the result that the application was dismissed as not pressed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document