- (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) TWENTY four persons, including the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, basant Lal and Satish Kumar, filed a suit on 6. 4. 1993 for perpetual injunction before the Subordinate Judge in Tis Hazari Court at Delhi. The respondent No. 1 i. e. the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (hereinafter referred to as an `apmc') raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the suit. Having regard to the provisions of Sec. 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act upholding the objection, the trial court dismissed the suit on 25. 7. 1998 holding that the suit was not maintainable. The appellants herein, along with the respondent No. 2, preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge and the same was also rejected on the ground of maintainability. Five separate regular second appeals were filed in the High Court, being rsa Nos. 65/00,66/00,76/00,79/00 and 82/00. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein, who were originally plaintiff Nos. 10 and 13 in the suit, did not file any second appeal against the judgment of the trial court as upheld by the ist Appellate Court. On 21st September, 2001, the Regular Second Appeals filed by the petitioners herein were allowed by the following order: "having considered the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the considered view that it will be just, proper, and necessary and expedient in interest of justice to allow the amendment applications of the appellants so that the dispute and controversy raised in the present proceedings is finally adjudicated on merits. The applications under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC filed in these appeals are accordingly allowed, however, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2000/- in each appeal. The result of allowing the amendment is that the suits of the appellants will now be maintainable and have to be tried on merits. the matter is, therefore, remanded back to the Trial Court for further trial in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear in the Trial Court on 4th October, 2001, to receive further directions in the matter. " By virtue of the said order the applications filed on behalf of the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the said appeal for amendment of the plaint to include the prayer for declaration was allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2000/- in each appeal. As was indicated in the order itself by allowing the amendment the suit of the appellants herein became maintainable and would have to be tried on merits. The matter was accordingly remanded back to the trial court for further trial in accordance with law.
(3.) WHEN the matter went back to the trial court, an application was made by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil procedure for amendment of the plaint, since they had not been made parties, either as plaintiffs or as defendants, in the amended plaint. The said application was dismissed on the ground of maintainability since it was found that the said respondents had no locus standi to maintain the application. Thereafter, the said respondents filed an application under order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being added as plaintiffs in the suit. Despite objections on behalf of the appellants herein the said application was allowed and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were added as plaintiffs in the suit. Aggrieved thereby the appellants moved the High Court in revision and the High Court relying on the provisions of Order 41 Rule 4 of the Code was of the view that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 could not be precluded from pursuing their remedy once the suit had been restored.;