JUDGMENT
Ashutosh Mohunta, J.
1. The challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 28.3.2002 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gohana, whereby the application under Order 6 Rule 17 Order 1 Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the plaintiff-petitioners, for impleadment of the wives of the defendants who were reported to be dead when the notices were issued in their names, was dismissed.
2. The Gram Panchayat, Jawahara passed a resolution on 15.3.2001 to allot the plots in favour of respondent Nos.2 to 68 alongwith some other persons. On the basis of the said resolution, it executed gift deeds on 18.4.2001 in favour of respondent Nos.2 to 74 out of the suit land. The suit land is allegedly being used as pond and for sitting of cattle belonging to the inhabitants of village Jawahara. The petitioners being inhabitants of the village filed the suit for declaration challenging the resolution dated 15.3.2001 as well as the gift deeds dated 18.4.2001. Where the notices were issued to the defendants in the suit, it transpired that defendant Nos. 13, 17, 32, 38 and 63, namely, Angrez, Ram Singh, Suba, Para Kasha and Surji, had already died before the filing of the suit. After the death of these persons, the Gram Panchayat had executed the gift deeds in the names of their wives, namely, Mukhtiarai, Sona, Bala, Bali and Savitri. When the plaintiff-petitioners came to know that the said defendants had already died, they filed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 1, Rule 10 CPC for substitution of the names of the wives in place of the deceased in the plaint. Objection was raised by the defendants for the substitution of the names of the wives in place of the dead persons as, according to them, it would change the nature of the suit and would given rise to a new cause of action. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gohana, dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs, vide order dated 28.3.2002. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
4. I am of the considered view that there was a bona fide mistake on the part of the plaintiff-petitioners to have arrayed dead persons as defendants. Had the plaintiffs knew before hand, they would not have arrayed the dead persons as defendants in the suit filed by them. After their death, the Gram panchayat had executed the gift deeds in favour of their wives. In case the names of wives of the dead persons are substituted in their place, it would not change the nature of suit nor it would given rise to a new cause of action. The object of Order I Rule 10, CPC is to avoid multiplicity of litigation, wherein the Court has been given power to allow a party to add any party at any stage of the proceedings if it is satisfied that there occurred a bona fide mistake. It has been so held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Satvir Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur and Ors., 1999(3) Civil Court Cases 175. In the present case there is no doubt that a bona fide mistake had occurred on the part of the plaintiffs at the time of the filing of the suit. It is in the interest of justice if proper parties are allowed to be impleaded.
5. Consequently, I allow the revision petition and set aside the order dated 28.3.2002 passed by the Additional Civil judge (Senior Division), Gohana.
