Baby Ammal vs Mrs. Meher Jameel

Abdul Hadi, J.—The plaintiff preferred this revision petition against the order dated 15.4.1994 made in C.M.P. No. 18 of 1994 impleading

the 18th defendant (the respondent herein) as a party in the appeal A.S. No. 259 of 1993 filed by the petitioner herein against the dismissal of her

suit O.S. No. 4869 of 1982. The said 18th defendant was a party in the said suit. But, in the decree in the said suit, it is observed that she

remained ex parte in the suit. Presumably on that ground, the plaintiff when she filed A.S. No. 259 of 1993 did not implead the 18th defendant as

party respondent in the appeal.

In the above situation, C.M.P. No. 18 of 1994 was filed by the 18th defendant. The court below while passing the order impleading the said

18th defendant has observed as follows:

This petitioner (the 18th defendant) was seriously contesting the suit. But by mistake or by oversight, this petitioner has described as ex parte in the

lower court decree and judgment.... In the present case, it is seen from the records, this petitioner (18th defendant) has contested the suit.

Thus when the court below points out that by mistake the 18th defendant has been described in the Judgment and decree of the trial court as ex

parte and when the court below has also observed that it is seen from the records that the said 18th defendant has contested the suit, the court

below is right in having impleaded the 18th defendant in appeal. Even in the present revision, no specific ground has been taken against the

abovesaid factual observations by the court below viz., that by mistake 18th defendant was described in the judgment and decree of the trial court

as ex parte and she contested the suit. No doubt the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the abovesaid impleading could not be ordered

under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. But there is no necessity to go into that question at all, since the court below has pointed out that by mistake the

18th defendant has been described as having remained ex pane and actually the 18th defendant contested the suit. When such is the case the

plaintiff herein should have impleaded the 18th defendant as a party. This is an omission on the part of the plaintiff herself. That omission alone has

been now set right by the impugned order. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the C.R.P. No. 2107 and hence the C.R.P. is

dismissed. No costs.