Judgment:
Amareshwar Sahay, J.
Heard the parties and with their consent this petition is disposed of at this stage itself.
1. The relevant facts in short are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a Title Suit being title suit No. 1/2001 in the court of Munsiff, Ghatsila, for specific performance of contract. The defendant-respondents-herein appeared and filed their written statement.
2. One of the objections taken in the written statement is that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties since the plaintiff has not made the six daughters of the father of the defendants as parties to the suit.
3. Thereafter, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application before the trial court for a direction to the defendants to disclose the name of those six daughters who have not been made parties. This application of the plaintiff was rejected. Subsequently the petitioner again filed such an application for direction to the defendant to disclose the names of those six daughters, but the court below rejected the same again on merit on 12.11.2003.
4. When the suit was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff, the plaintiff-petitioner again filed an application purported to be under Section 151 C.P.C. for a direction to the defendant-respondents to disclose the name of those six daughters so that they could be added as party-defendants in the suit. But the court below by the impugned order dated 08.12.2003 has rejected again on the same ground that there is no such provision in the C.P.C to direct the defendant to disclose the name of any such person and that the plaintiff was adopting delaying tactics.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner by citing a decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Jagdish Chandra v. Kameshwar Singh reported in A.I.R. 1953 Patna 178, submitted that it was essential and incumbent upon the defendant to disclose the name of those six daughters, since he had taken the objection of non-joinder of the parties in the written statement.
6. After hearing the parties and after going through the judgment of the Patna High Court, I find that in the same judgment, it has been held that where an objection is raised to the framing of suit on account of defect of parties, the names of the persons omitted should be specifically mentioned so as to enable the other side to add those persons as parties to the suit if necessary. If this is not done, objection would be deemed to have been waived.
7. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this petition, accordingly, the same is dismissed. If so advised, the plaintiff-petitioner may raise such plea before the trial court at an appropriate stage.
8. With this observation, this writ petition is dismissed.