Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O. XLI, r. 27

(a) Pre-emption-Suit for pre-emption-Plaintiff having a right of pre-emption, associating in his suit another person not so entitled-Question whether Court in such circumstance compe�tent to direct deletion of name of such stranger and pass decree in favour of plaintiff- Special leave to appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider question.(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI, r. 27-Addi�tional evidence, production of, in appellate Court-First Appeal late Court admitting document (jamabandi) as additional evidence without any application for purpose by party and without recording reasons for its admission-Document, held, admitted by first appellate Court in utter disregard of legal provisions relating to admission of additional evidence in appellate Court-Case, in such circumstance, could not be remanded back to First Appellate Court to consider question whether document should or should not be admitted w additional evidence.Sathuluru Seetharamanujacharyulu v. Narra Venkatasubbamma and anther I L R 54 Mad. 132 ref.(c) Pre-emption -Suit for pre-emption -Plaintiff, in suit, joining a stranger as co plaintiff-Right of pre-emption not wholly lost merely on that score-Suit maintainable in name of pre-emptor alone if name of stranger be struck off from record Joining stranger as co-plaintiff in suit for pre-emption-A procedural mistake, remediable by amendment under O. I r. 10, C. P. C. -Civil Pro� cedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, r. 10, C. P. C.In a suit for pre-emption, the plaintiff associated as co-plaintiff with himself another person having no right of pre�emption. The question that arose for consideration was whether by associating with himself a stranger, the pre-emptor, in the circumstance, forfeited his right to pre-empt the property in dispute and whether the High Court was not justified in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff after deleting the name of the stranger from the plaint.Held : The right of a pre-emptor-plaintiff is not lost if in a suit to enforce his right he joins with him a stranger.If such plaintiff, however, insisted in getting the relief jointly, then it was obvious that no relief could be granted at all to them.…