ORDER :- This is a plaintiffs application in revision against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Theog dated 13-10-1952 whereby the plaintiffs were directed to file an amended plaint impleading the State of Himachal Pradesh as a defendant. This order was passed after the disposal of the preliminary issue whether the said State was a necessary party to the suit. The Court held that the State was a necessary party.

2. There are two preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for the defendants-respondents. The first is that the plaintiffs are estopped from filing their revision because of an application which they filed on 23-10-1952 for extension of time to file the amended plaint in accordance with the aforesaid finding. There is no doubt that extension of time was in fact prayed for by the plaintiffs, but I do not think that by reason merely of having put in such an application the plaintiffs would be estopped from coming up in revision against the order in question. The learned counsel for the respondents cited - Ramaswami Chettiar v. Chindambaram Chettiar, AIR 1927 Mad 1009 (2) (A); - Sohan Lal v. Dhan Mal Ishar Das, AIR 1928 Lah 813 (2) (B), - Bahadur v. Mohamm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document