T.P.S.MANN, J. - (1.) THE appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana on 10.9.1984, whereby their appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was not competent as one of the defendants was not made a party-respondent and that the provisions of Order 41 Rule 20 CPC were not attracted.
(2.) THE appellants had initially filed a civil suit for declaration that they were absolute owners in equal shares of the entire land, as described in the heading of the plaint, and for declaration that the mortgage deeds dated 20.12.1978, 20.12.1978 and 15.1.1979 and sale-deeds dated 31.7.1978, 20.4.1978, 20.4.1978, 20.4.1979 and 8.10.1979 relating to the said ancestral, co-parcenary and joint Hindu family suit land were without consideration, legal necessity etc. The possession of half share of the suit land was also sought, besides permanent injunction restraining Mukhtiar Singh-defendant from interfering and obstructing in the joint possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. In the aforementioned suit, seven persons were impleaded as defendants, including one Jagrup Singh son of Kehar Singh. Vide judgment dated 30.8.1992, learned Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Samrala dismissed the said suit with costs. Aggrieved from the same, the plaintiffs/appellants filed an appeal before learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. Along with the appeal, certified copy of the judgment and decree passed by learned Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Samrala dated 30.8.1982 was also filed. However, in the memorandum of appeal, aforementioned Jagrup Singh son of Kehar Singh, who was one of the defendants before the trial Court, was not impleaded. An objection was raised on behalf of the defendant-respondents that the appeal was not competent because one of the defendants, namely, Jagrup Singh, had not been impleaded as a party-respondent in the same. On coming to know about the objection raised on behalf of the defendants, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants filed an application under Order 41 Rules 1 and 3, Section 151 read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the memorandum of appeal so as to include the name of Jagrup Singh as one of the respondents. In the said application, counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants took up the stand that the memorandum of appeal was drafted as per the certified copy of the judgment of the trial Court supplied to them in the case in which the name of Jagrup Singh did not find mention. Therefore, the non-inclusion of his name in the memorandum of appeal was a bona fide mistake.
(3.) LEARNED Additional District Judge, Ludhiana did not accept the application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants for amendment of the memorandum of appeal and went ahead to dismiss the same as being not competent, without touching the merits of the same.;