JUDGMENT
G.C. Garg, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated August 29, 1990. In order to understand the controversy raised herein, it is necessary to notice few facts
2. Aad Ram son of Raman, plaintiff appointed Dharam Singh defendant respondent as his attorney in respect of the suit land on May 13. 1983. Dharam Singh as his attorney executed a lease deed in favour of his wife Smt. Azad Kaur. Thereafter, Aad Ram filed a suit for declaration to the effect that general power of attorney No. 59 dated May 13,1983 executed by him in favour of defendant No. 1, Dharam Singh was wrong, against law and facts and being based on fraud has no effect on his rights and consequently the registered lease deed dated June 6, 1983 executed on the basis of the foresaid general power of attorney by defendant No, 1, Dharam Singh in favour of his wife Smt. Azad Kaur was also wrong, against law and facts, non-existent and thus, had no effect on his (Aad Ram plaintiff) rights Smt. Kalawati and others, now petitioner moved an application in the said suit, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Cede of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as parties to the suit alleging that they were the owners of the suit land to the extent of half share. This application was allowed and they were impleaded as defendants in the suit by order dated February 4, 1988. This order became final and consequently they filed written statement. Bhararo Singh and his wife, the original defendants moved an application seeking permission to file written statement of the claim made by the added defendants in their written statement. The trial Court by order dated May !6, 1988 rejected this application. Aggrieved by this order, Dharam Singh and his wife filed Civil Revision No. 18] 1 of 1988 in this Court which was disposed of by J. V. Gupta, J. (as his Lordship then was) on August 11, 1989. The revision was allowed and orders dated February 4, 1988 and May 16, 1988 were set aside. It was ordered that defendants 3 to 8 (the added defendants) may be added as plaintiffs to the suit if the original plaintiff (Aad Ram) had no objection and that in case, the added defendants are allowed to be impleaded as plaintiffs, the original defendants 1 and 2 would be entitled to file their written statement to the plea taken by the formers (added plaintiffs) The matter again happened to be considered by the trial Court and the added defendants, Smt. Kalawati and others were arrayed as plaintiffs as the original plaintiff (Aad Ram) had no objection to their being so arrayed. An amended plaint was filed wherein the added plaintiffs as well made their claim. At this juncture, defendants Dharam Singh and his wife took exception to the filing of the amended plaint and incorporating therein the claim by the added plaintiffs. This objection of the defendants found favour with the trial Court which by order dated August 29, 1990 observed that the plaintiffs were not allowed to incorporate fresh pleas of relief, description of suit property and demarcation and identification of the suit property either by numbers or by location. 3. It is against this order of the trial Court, the added plaintiffs have filed the present revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the entire approach of the learned trial Court is wrong Once the petitioners were permitted to be arrayed as plaintiff without any objection from the original plaintiff, they were legally entitled to file amended plaint incorporating therein the relief claimed by them. Learned counsel further submitted that in fact the High Court while allowing Civil Revision 1811 of 1988 had permitted the petitioners to take all pleas in the suit as were available to them under the law. Learned counsel referred to the concluding part of the judgment of the High Court wherein it was observed as under : –
“Defendants 3 to 8 may be added as plaintiffs if the plaintiff has no objection and in that case the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 will be entitled to file their written statement to the plea taken by the added plaintiffs.”
Learned counsel for the petitioners on the strength of the above observations submitted that in fact the added plaintiffs had been permitted to raise pleas in the plaint that were available to them and the trial Court had completely gone wrong and acted illegally and with material inregularity in accepting the objection of the defendants to the filing of the amended plaint wherein the pleas taken by the added plaintiffs had been incorporated.
5. None has put in appearance on behalf of the contesting respondents Dharam Singh and his wife at the final hearing of the petition though they are represented by a counsel.
6. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, I am of the view that this revision must succeed. It has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the High Court had in fact, while disposing of the earlier revision petition, permitted the amendment of the plaint and consequently permitted the defendants to file written statement to the pleas which might be taken therein by the added plaintiffs. The approach of the trial Court is entirely erroneous. In the facts of this case, once the petitioners were permitted to be added as plaintiffs and their claim is that they are the owners of half share of the suit land, they have to be permitted to plead these facts in the suit so as to enable them to have a declaration or whatsoever relief they might be ultimately found entitled to Defendants would be at liberty to raise all possible pleas of defence to the claim made by the added plaintiffs and defeat such claim if they are legally entitled to do so But it could not be said that the added plaintiffs were not entitled to make their claim in the suit by filing amended plaint,
7. For the reasons recorded above, the revision petition succeeds and is allowed, and the order dated August 29, 1990 of the trial Court is set aside. No costs.