Mr. Rajiv Narain Raina, J.: - Rameshwar Dass-petitioner/plaintiff (for short “the plaintiff”) filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 12th March, 2004 executed by him with seller-vendor Smt. Prem Lata. The sale deed could not be registered. The plaintiff brought a suit against Prem Lata. She appeared but was later proceeded ex parte. The plaintiff was informed that Prem Lata died on 25th September, 2006 during the pendency of the suit. He then came to know that Prem Lata sold the same land to the Kaushalya, wife of Ram Saran and their son Ramesh vide registered sale deed dated 29th October, 2004.

2. On these supervening events, the plaintiff took steps under Order 22 Rule 4, CPC for bringing LRs of Prem Lata on record. He applied under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC for amendment of the plaint to the effect that the sale deed dated 29th October, 2004 is null and void and ineffective in the presence of agreement to sell dated 12th March, 2004. The third request in the composite application was made under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading subsequent purchasers as defendant Nos.2 and 3. There was another significant supervening event occuring pendente lite with Kaushalya Devi dying which led her LRs to file an application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 19th December, 2011.

3. The learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) passed the order dated 03th May, 2012 on the three prayer single application as follows:-

“Heard on the application under order 6 Rule 17 CPC and under order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading the subsequent purchasers Kaushalya and Ramesh as party in the original suit, it has been alleged that during the pendency of the suit the property had been sold to these persons. Accordingly they are necessary parties to be impleaded in the present case under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and under order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Accordingly application stands disposed off.

A careful perusal of file goes to show that Smt. Prem Lata the original defendant had died. Application for impleading her L.Rs had been moved under order 22 Rule 4 CPC. Heard on the application. Keeping in view the fact that Smt. Prem Lata has died, her L.Rs are allowed to be impleaded as party in the present case. Let notice to L.Rs of deceased defendant Prem Lata be issued for 30.5.2012. Further a careful perusal of case file goes to show that now Kaushalya Devi has also died and her L.Rs. had also filed application for setting aside the ex-party Judgment and decree dated 19.12.2011 namely Ramesh Kumar, Neelam, Sushma Parveen and Kiran. Whereas plaintiff had in his application for impleading LRs had pleaded only one Ramesh Kumar. Since all the Lrs have come on record by moving application for setting aside ex-party judgment and decree dated 19.12.2011 wherein applicants are already party in the present case and LRs of defendant are already impleaded under my aforesaid order, for filing of amended title as well as for filing of written statement by newly added defendant and notice to LRs of Prem Lata to come upon 30.05.2012.” (underlined for emphasis)

4. The trial Court does not appear to have taken due care to specifically deal with the application under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC and has clubbed both the said requests and prayer under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC by simply holding that third parties are necessary parties and accordingly “application stands disposed off”.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the order to the extent that it permits amended title to be placed on record but not the amended plaint and permitting the newly added defendants to file their written statement meaning thereby in response to the original plaint, the plaintiff chose to file an application under Ss.151 & 152, CPC praying that the order be corrected to accomodate reception of the amended plaint on record since in pith and substance it has been so allowed by the trial Court by the above reproduced order dated 03rd