CRP 129/2004 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR MADAN B. LOKUR The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 26-4-04 passed by the learned Civi l Judge, Jr Division No.1, Guwahati in TS No.38/95. The impugned order is the result of an application having been filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Sec 151 thereof for addition of some parties who are the married sisters of the petitioner and the legal heir s of a deceased sister. It appears that earlier the petitioner had filed a Title Suit and prayed for a declaration with regard to the property of the petitioner’s father over w hich the petitioners’ brothers and sisters also had a share. In that title suit being TS No.180/86 the petitioner did not make the married sisters parties to th e proceedings. In other words the petitioner did not claim any relief against hi s married sisters in the title suit filed in 1986. Subsequently the title suit was decreed and the petitioner filed yet another tit le suit in 1995 and in this suit also he did not initially make his married sist ers as parties. Much later, i.e. after a gap of about 10 years or so the petitio ner sought to implead his married sisters and the legal heirs of a deceased sist er as defendants to the proceedings by moving an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC read with Sec 151 thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs me that the second title suit being TS No.38/95 was initially dismissed but on an appeal it was remanded back for fresh consideration by the Civil Judge, Jr Division. After remand, the peti tioner moved an application for impleadment as above. The learned Civil Judge rejected the impleadment application on the grou nd that the petitioner did not make the proposed defendants as parties to the pr oceedings which were initiated in 1986 and also in the proceedings which were in itiated in the year 1995. At this belated stage, the petitioner could not be all owed to implead new parties. I do not find any error in the view taken by the learned Civil Judge, Jr Division No.1. Apart from the fact that there was a long delay in moving the ap plication for impleadment, even in the earlier title suit the petitioner did not implead his married sisters as parties to the proceedings. As such, the petitio ner never raised any claim against his married sisters and, therefore, it is now too late to implead them as defendants in a subsequent title suit which was als o for a declaration. There is no merit in the revision petition and it is dismissed. The parties will now appear before the learned trial court on 15-12-2010 . It is made clear that any observation made will not influence the learne d trial court at the time of disposal of the suit. Send back the lower court records immediately.