Khosla, J.

1. This is a somewhat unfortunate case. The plaintiffs brought a suit seeking to correct an entry in the revenue records. The plaintiffs were shown owners of 1/5th of land held by them jointly with other members of their family. According to the plaint, they were entitled to 1/3rd. There were four defendants in the case and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. One of the issues that arose in the case was whether the plaintiffs ancestor had not been born of a duly wedded wife. The plaintiffs claim was based on the fact that their ancestor was born in wedlock and therefore they represented one of three lines of descent. The defence was that the plaintiffs ancestor was not born of a lawfully wedded wife and therefore they were not entitled to a full 1/3rd share. This point was decided against the plaintiffs.

2. The plaintiffs appealed and failed to implead one of the defendants Aje Ram Singh. At the time of the hearing of the appeal the plaintiffs sought the permission of the Court to add Aje Ram Singh under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 20, Civil P. C. Limitation for filing an appeal against Aje Ram Singh had expired and the District Judge declined to grant