Bharat Singh, appellant no. 1, instituted 5 suits on behalf of himself, Kirpa Ram and Bhagirati. All tl!ese suits related to agricultural land. Dl, D2, D3 and D4, the plaints in four of tl!ese suits, were in tl!e name of t!Ie plaintiffs and Bhagirati and it was stated in them that the plaintiffs were tl!e proprietors of the agricultural land in suit. With respect to tl!e admission in these D plaints that Bhagirti was one of the proprietors, Bharat Singh stated that he had been including her name in the cases filed against tenants in accordance with the revenue papers. This is a sound explanation. So long as an entry in the defendant's name stood in the revenue papers, suits in revenue Courts, as these suits were, had to be filed in ihose names. D-5 is the plaint of a suit by E Bharat Singh and Kirpa Ram instituted on April 6, 1943. Bhagirti is impleaded as defendant no. 1. Para 1 of the plaint stated that defendants nos. 2 to 5 were non-occupancy tenants under the plaintiffs and defendant no. 1, and para 3 stated that defendant no. 1 being absent, conld not' join the suit and that therefore she had been made a pro-forma defendant. When Bharat Singh F made the statement on November 27, 1953 'I do not remember why Bhagirati was made defendant', he does not appear to have been shown the plaint Exhibit D-5. There is nothing surprising if he could not remember the reason for making her a defendant. Earlier he had already made a statement on October 3, 1953 that G they had been including her name in tl!e cases filed against tenants in accordance with revenue papers and that explanation, together with what is entered in the plaint, sufficiently explains for Bhagirti. being inlpleaded as defendant in D-5. The High Court was not factually correct in making the following observation :
