JUDGMENT

Broadway, J. - On the 11th November, 1919, one Hashmat Khan sold 53 kanals, 19 marlas including his share in the shamilat and his rights in a further 1 kanal, 18 marlas of shamilat to Niaz Ali Khan and five others, including a minor named Riasat Khan, son of Faiz Talib Khan. The deed was duly registered. On the 27th August, 1920, a minor named Muhammad Fazil, nephew of Hashmat Khan, vendor, acting through his mother, Musammat Gauhar Begam, instituted a suit claiming possession of the land sold by Hashmat Khan by pre-emption. The first hearing of the case took place on the 6th November, 1920, when it was found that the defendants had not been served. The plaintiff was told to furnish the necessary addresses and on the same date filed an application giving particulars. In this application the name of Riasat Khan, son of Faiz Talib Khan, was mentioned. On the 10th December, 1920, the defendants appeared and pointed out that Riasat Khan was one of the vendees but had not been impleaded in the plaint. In spite of this omission having been brought to the notice of the plaintiff, no steps were taken to bring Riasat Khan on to the record until the 24th January, 1921, when the Court returned the plaint for amendment owing to the omission of Riasat Khan's name, directing the plaintiff to cause the necessary amendment to be made. Riasat Khan's name was entered in the plaint on the same day.

2. It should be noted that in the original plaint amongst the defendants' names was that of Feroz Khan, son of Imam Ali Khan a person who was not a vendee and had nothing whatever to do with the case. On the 14th January, 1921, an application was made on behalf of the plaintiff asking that his name be struck off, yet no steps were taken in regard to Riasat Khan. The defendants pleaded that, inasmuch as Riasat Khan had been impleaded after the expiry of one year from the date of sale, the suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court held that the omission of Riasat Khan's name was due to a mistake but that this did not excuse the plaintiff, and the suit was accordingly dismissed. The plaintiff preferred an appeal to the District Court and the learned District Judge, while recognizing the extreme carelessness of the plaintiff's next friend, considered that the mistake made should be condoned. He, therefore, accepted the appeal and remanded the case for trial on the merits. Against this order of remand this second appeal has been preferred on behalf of the vendees-defendants through Mr. Anant Ram and I have heard Mr. Kureshi on behalf of the plaintiff.

3. It has been contended by Mr. Kureshi that, as a matter of fact, Riasat Khan's name should be regarded as having been entered in the plaint from the outset, inasmuch as instead of bis name, that of Feroz Khan was inadvertently entered. Seeing that the fathers of these two persons are different and that Feroz Khan was a major while Riasat Khan was a minor this contention, has, in my opinion, no force.

4. It was next contended that it was not necessary under the present Code to enter the names of all persons against whom a relief is claimed in a plaint. Here, again, I am unable to agree.

5. Next, it was urged that Riasat Khan had been added by order of the Court and that, therefore, on the authority of Fakira Pasban v. Bibi Azimunnissa (1900) 27 Cal. 540, no question of limitation arose. I am unable to agree that the name of Riasat Khan was added at the instance of the Court. It seems to me that the circumstances disclose extreme carelessness on the part of the plaintiff's next friend and advisers.

6. The deed was a registered one and the suit was not filed (or some nine months after its execution. It may be considered a little bard to penalise a minor plaintiff for the gross neglect of his guardian. At the same time, it has to be borne in mind that Riasat Khan, one of the vendees, is also a minor and that bis interests have also to be considered. By the negligence disclosed in this case this minor, R