1. This revision is directed against-the order dated 23-6-1978 of the District Judge, Srinagar, dismissing the application of the petitioners under Order 41 R. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Briefly speaking the facts of the case are that Abdul Rashid the respondent brought a suit for ejectment in respect of the suit premises against the three defendants namely Smt. Devki Durrani, Smt. Brij Mohani Durrani and Sh. Brij Lal Durrani describing them as his tenants. That suit has been decreed by the trial court. Against the judgment and decree of the trial court an appeal has been filed which is pending in the court of the District Judge, Srinagar. During the pendency of the appeal an application under order 41 R. 2 C. P. C. was filed by Shrimati Devki Durrani and Shrimati Brij Mohani Durrani in which they sought leave to raise additional grounds in the memo of appeal. The grounds sought to be raised are as follows: -

(1) That Shri B. L. Durrani defendant No. 3 is only an attorney holder of the appellants and at present is acting as Manager of the said property.

(2) The appellants are the tenants of the suit property and Mr. B. L. Durrani has wrongly been impleaded as one of the tenants of the suit property. The trial court has appreciated the evidence on the assumption that Mr. B. L. Durrani is one of the tenants and therefore has misdirected itself and has fallen into a grave error of law.

(3) The trial court has not at all considered the comparative advantage and disadvantage of all the appellants who are the actual tenants vis-a-vis the respondent plaintiff.

(4) That family arrangement which has been relied upon by the trial court is illegal and void. There could be no family arrangement between the two co-owners of the property. In that view of the matter the plaintiff does not hold the property in his own right. One of the executants of the family arrangement is admittedly a minor. The family arrangement was therefore null and void and was also collusive, and this document did not authorise the respondent to bring a suit for ejectment against the tenants.

(5) The trial court has not, struck all the issues which expressly emerge from pleading of the parties.

3. The appellants also sought permission to implead Shri B. L. Durrani as respondent in the memo of appeal as according to them he was not a party to the appeal but being a party to the decision given by the trial court, he was a necessary party and therefore it was necessary to implead him as respondent.

4. Objections to this application were invited from the plaintiff respondent. The learned appellate court on consideration of the matter rejected the application on the following grounds: -

1. Shri B. L. Durrani while submitting a joint amended written statement on 11-10-76 on his own behalf and on behalf of the other appellants as their attorney, admitted in most unequivocal terms that he alongwith the other defendants was the tenant of the suit property. In his sworn testimony before the trial court also he admitted that he is the tenant of the suit property. In view of these facts the appellants cannot be now permitted to change their stand to the manifest disadvantage of the plaintiff respondent and make out a new case by this denial. The ground which is sought to be introduced in the memo of appeal was available to the appellants even at the time of filing the written statement. Now after a period of 8 years they cannot be permitted to introduce a case totally inconsistent with the original stand as that would certainly necessitate a fresh trial and also leading fresh evidence.

2. The learned trial Judge also did not accede to the contention of the petitioner to be impleaded as respondent in the memo of appeal as the petitioner already figured as a co-appellant in the memo of appeal.

5. Appearing for the petitioner Mr. Z. A. Shah has contended that there were reasonable and cogent grounds on which was founded the application of the appellants under order 41 R 2 of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document