The plaintiff's right to pre-emption was barred by limitation as per Article 97 of the Limitation Act, with amendments to parties not altering the original filing date without explicit court order.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

CM-6-C-2018

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 36 days in filing the appeal.

Heard.

For the reasons as mentioned in the application, supported by an affidavit of one of the LRs of the appellant, the delay of 36 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

The application stands disposed of.

RSA-3-2018

Suit for possession by way of pre-emption of the suit land filed by plaintiff- Ram Kumar (Appellant herein through his LRs) was dismissed by the trial Court of Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Yamuna nagar vide judgment dated 06.03.2013. The appeal filed by the said plaintiff was dismissed by the Appellate Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Yamunanagar on 08.03.2017. Against these concurrent findings, present regular second appeal has been filed.

2. Plaintiff sought to pre-empt the sale deed dated 13.01.2006 in respect of land comprised in khasra No.404, as per details given in the plaint, situated in revenue estate of village Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar. Yad Ram – the vendor was impleaded as defendant No.1 (respondent N: 1 herein); whereas one Balak Ram was impleaded as defendant No.2 and it was alleged that suit land had been sold by vendor – Yad Ram to Balak Ram. Pre-emption was sought by the plaintiff on the ground that he was a tenant on the suit land.

3. The two initially impleaded defendants, i.e. Yad Ram and Balak Ram contested the suit, contending that defendant No.2 had not purchased the suit land comprised in khasra No.404; and rather, he had purchased khasra No.414 from Yad Ram.

4. Necessary issues were framed. The case was at the stage of plaintiff’s evidence, when application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Order I Rule 10 CPC was moved by the plaintiff so as to replace Smt. Anupama as defendant No.2 in place of Balak Ram, by submi5ng that khasra No.404, i.e. suit property in question had been sold by Yad Ram to said Smt. Anupama. On the no objection endorsed by the counsel for the initially impleaded defendants, the application was allowed on 23.01.2018. The amended title was filed on 17.04.2018. Smt. Anupama, i.e. newly impleaded defendant No.2 (now respondent No.2) put in appearance on 26.09.2008 and contested the suit. One of the ground to contest the suit was that it was barred by limitation.

5. Both the Courts below found the suit to be barred by limitation and as such, dismissed the same.

6. Assailing the findings, it is contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff – appellant that the impugned sale deed was executed by defendant – Yad Ram in favour of Smt. Anupama on 13.01.2006; that suit was filed on 12.01.2007; that though the amendment in the plaint & to Implead Smt. Anupama as a party was allowed on 23.01.2008, but the said amendment will relate back to the date of filing of the suit, i.e. 12.01.2007 and therefore, the Courts below have wrongly held the suit to be time barred.

7. This Court does not find merit in the abovesaid contention. The period of one year is prescribed under Article 97 of the Limitation Act to file a suit for pre-emption. Smt. Anupama, i.e. vendee of the sale deed in respect of suit land comprising khasra No.404 has been permitted to be impleaded as party to the suit as per order dated 23.01.2008 and after filing of the amended title on 17.04.2008, she put in appearance on 26.09.2008.

8. As per Order I Rule 10 (4) CPC, where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless Court otherwise directs, is to be amended in such manner, as may be necessary and the copy of amended plaint alongwith summons are to be served upon new defendant and i