- (1.) THE circumstances that give rise to this revision may briefly be stated thus, Chauth Mal Maidhulal brought a suit against Balla, Kanhaiyalal and Hardeva in the court of the sub -judge, Sawai Madhopur on 8.7.1944 with the allegations that Chhitor, the father of Chauth Mal, plaintiff, mortgaged the land in dispute with Balla, defendant, for Rs, 126/ - in Jeth Svt. 1972 corresponding to June, 1915 A.D., that Balla mortgaged the same with Kanhaiyalal for an equivalent consideration in Jeth Svt. 1983 and that Kanhaiyalal also mortgaged it with Hardava in Svt. 1997 for Rs. 226/ - The Civil Judge returned the plaint which was eventually presented before the Assistant Collector who decreed the suit on 7.8.1947 against all the three defendants. Balla defendant filed and appeal against this decree before the Collector Sawai Madhopur. It is significant to observe that Chauth Mal alone was impleaded as respondent in this appeal and Kanhaiyalal and Hardeva were not made parties to it. The first appellate court allowed Ballas appeal and set aside the decree of the trial court on 18.7.1950. Thereupon the plaintiffs went up in second appeal before the Additional Commissioner and in this second appeal only Jinsi and Ramchander, son of Balla - - Balla having died in the meantime were made respondents. This appeal was rejected on 26.11.51. Hence this revision by the plaintiff.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the applicants was required to address arguments on the point as to whether in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction the Board can reverse the decree of the lower appellate court against all the three defendants in the face of the fact that two of these defendants, Kanhaiyalal and Hardeva (Hardeva having die now is being represented by his son Raja Ram), were not impleaded as respondents in both the appeals. It has been argued on behalf of the applicant that it is open to the Board to join them as necessary parties inspite of the fact that they had not been made parties in the two appeals and the period of limitation of appeals against them had expired. The following decisions have been cited in support of this contention: A I.R. 1940 Patna 137, A I.R. 1924 Patna 773, A.I.R. 1918 Patna 825, A.I.R. 1933 Madras 806, A.I R. 1921 Calcutta 722 and A.I.R. 1941 Lahore 402, The learned counsel for the opposite party has invited our attention to note No. 3 of order 41 rule 20 at page 3350 of Chitaleys C.P.C., 1951 edition, which runs as follows: - - "It was held by the Privy Council in 1927 P.C.252 that were a defendant had been exonerated in the lower court and no appeal had been filed against him within the period of limitation, he was not interested in the result of the appeal filed by the plaintiff against other defendants." Some decisions of the Calcutta and Lahore High courts though pronounced subsequent to the above Privy Council case admitted the view overruled by the privy Council and hence they must be regarded as not correct. Some of the latest decisions which are in conformity with the views expressed in the privy Council decision have been cited on behalf of the opposite -party. In A.I.R. 1954 Punjab it was held that "The plaintiffs, he had lost in the trial court, appealed and failed to implead one of the defendants. Limitation for filing an appeal against that defendant had expired. The District Judge declined to grant the prayer of the plaintiffs who sought permission of the court to add him under O.41, R. 20 held that whether the District Judge had discretion in the matter or not he could not be said to have acted wrongly in refusing to implead the defendant. But apart from the question of discretion that defendant could no longer be said to be an interested party since the decision of the trial court in his favour was unalterable and not open to appeal In the circumstances the District Judge acted rightly in refusing to implead the defendant." Similarly in A.I.R 1953 Travancore Cochin 447, it was held that where only one defandant was impleaded in appeal against decree which was in favour of the defendants the appeal was not maintainable. A similar view was expressed in 1952 Himachal Pradesh 9. It was observed therein that "under order 41 rule 20 an appellate court is entitled to add as a respondent any party not so impleaded but interested in the result of the appeal. This power would not, however be exercised if the period of limitation as against the party sought to be so added has already expired for, by reason of the appeal having thus become time barred against him, such a party cannot be said to interested in the result of the appeal". In the present case the plaintiff themselves claimed that the land was in possession of Hardeva as a mortgage was created in his favour by Kanhaiyalal with whom Balla, the first mortgage had mortgage the land. A decree for redemption of the land to be effective must be directed against Hardeva or his legal representative. As Hardeva was not made a party in either of the two appeals the decree that was passed in his favour by the first appellate court had become final and cannot be interfered with. For these reasons, without going into other aspects of the case, we hold that this revision deserves to be rejected. The revision is hereby dismissed. ;