S.N. Modi, J.
1. This is a revision application by defendent Madhay lal against the order of the Munsif, Gulabpura dated 19.10.1972 whereby learned Munsif rejected the prayer of the petitioner to file written statement after allowing amendment of the plaint.
2. The relevant facts giving rise to this revision application are that non-petitioner Laxman brought a suit for pre-emption on 15.9.1966 against the vendee Madanlal and vendor Madhavlal in respect of some agricultural land. The plaintiff claimed himself to be a co-sharer in the suit property and on that basis he pleaded that he was entitled to pre-empt the suit property sold by Madhavlal in favour of Madanlal. The summons of the suit were served on the petitioner Madhavlal but he did not but in appearance in the court with the result that ex-parte proceedings were ordered against him. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff Laxman moved an application seeking permission to amend the plaint by adding the following para:
^^fodYi es oknh dh ;g Hkh izkFkZuk gS fd ;fn fdlh dkuwuh vk/kkj ij preemption dh fMdzh cgd oknh ugh Hkh nh tkos rks Hkh pwfd ;g lfEefdr dqVqEc dh tk;nkn gS tks lfEefyr ifjokj dh fcyk fdlh tk;t t:jr (Legal necessity) ds csph xbZ gS vr% ;g fcdkoukek cgd izfroknh ds eqdkcys void & inoperative gksdj dkfcy [kkfjt dh gS A
3. The trial court allowed this application and the plaint was allowed to be amended accordingly without any notice to the petitioner Tadhay Lal. It so appears that when Madhavlal came to know about the said amendment of the plaint he moved an application that since the amendment was made behind his back without giving him any notice he must be allowed to file written statement, for the amendment vitally affects his interests. The learned Munsif after bearing arguments of the parties dismissed the application of Madhavlal It is against this order that the present revision application has been preferred by the petitioner Madhavlal.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. There is no manner of doubt that before amendment Madhavlal had no interest or very little interest in the suit filed by Laxman as he was merely a vendor and the suit was for possession of the property sold by him by pre-emption on the ground of the plaintiff being a cosharer. But on amendment of the plaint Madhavlal's interests were vitally affected as his right to sell the property was challenged. In the circumstances, the question arises whether or not the petitioner Madhavlal should be permitted to file the written statement. In my opinion, the answer must be in the affirmative. Before amendment, the relief claimed by the plaintiff was based un his right to preempt the property in dispute. In other words the plaintiff filed the suit assuming the sale made by Madhavlal to be valid. After amendment, the plaintiff challenged the validity of the sale on the ground that Madhavlal had 1.0 right to sell the land. That being the case it was bounden duty of the to art to issue notice to Madhavlal of the amended plaint calling upon him to file the written statement. The learned Munsif in the circumstances was wholly unjustified in refusing Madhavlal's prayer to file written statement.
5. I accordingly allow this revision application set aside the impugned order and direct the learned Munsif to afferd an opportunity to Madhavlal to file written statement of the amended plaint.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Madhavlal has also a right to challenge the validity of the order permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint in his written statement. I need not express any opinion on this point as no prayer to that effect was made in the court below.
7. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs in this Court.