Judgment Heard Sri M.S. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Divakar Chamoli, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Both the parties have submitted that let the matter be finally disposed of. 3. By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed to set aside the order dated 11-08-2003 passed by the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Kumaon, Circuit Court Uttaranchal, Nainital and to issue a direction to the respondents not to give effect to the order passed by the learned lower Court and further has prayed to delete the name of the respondents from the Khata Khatoni nos. 158, 138, 139, 140, 190, 120, 141 and 142, and mention the name of the aforesaid petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that Khasra Nos. 148/1/3 and 146/3 out of the land in dispute, which is in the name of Mr. Sundar Singh son of Sri Sher Singh have already been sold to one Girish Kumar and Monish Kumar. 5. Present suit has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act praying for declaration that on the basis of the Will dated 21st May, 1981, plaintiffs are entitled to succeed after the death of late Sri Sundar Singh and as such in respect of the property left by the deceased Sunder Singh, the Trial Court has framed two Issues. Issue no.1 related to the fact of the Will dated 21st May, 1981 and Issue no.2 was as to whether the plaintiffs are entitled for any other relief or not. 6. While deciding the issue no.1, the Trial Court has recorded a finding that since the plaintiff has not imp-leaded Girish Kumar and Monish Kumar, therefore, issues were decided against the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs went in Revision and the Revisional Court has observed that late Sri Sunder Singh has already sold land to Girish Kumaar and Monish Kumar and they have not been imp-leaded as a party. Apart from that the plaintiffs having failed to imp-lead proper parties, appeal was dismissed. 7. Plaintiffs went in Revision and the Revisional Court has observed that late Sri Sunder Singh has already sold land to Girish Kumaar and Monish Kumar and they have not been imp-leaded as a party. Apart from that the plaintiffs having failed to imp-lead proper parties, appeal was dismissed. 7. Since the suit and appeal both have been dismissed on technical ground therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if there was any defect, the trial court should have given an opportunity to imp-lead the two parties as respondents and the suit should not have been dismissed on the technical ground. 8. The Trial Court has dismissed the suit on account of the fact that the petitioners have not imp-leaded proper parties. I find, there was no issue before the trial court regarding the Will dated 21st May, 1981 and since the suit has been dismissed on the technical ground that the plaintiffs have not imp-leaded appropriate parties and therefore, let the plaintiffs be allowed to imp-lead the proper parties. 9. In Ghanshyam Dass and others Vs. Dominion of India and others 1984 (3) SCC Page 46, reliance has been placed on the judgement Election Tribunal, where the Apex Court has held that no proceedings in a court of law can be allowed to be defeated on mere technicalities. The observations made in the judgement of Sangram Singh Vs. Election Tribunal Kotah AIR 1955 SC 425 is quoted below :- "18. Our laws of procedure are based on the principle that "as far as possible, no proceeding in a court of law should be allowed to be defeated on mere technicalities". 10. The writ petition, therefore, is disposed of with a direction that the plaintiffs may be allowed to imp-lead the appropriate and proper parties. The matter is sent back to the Assistant Collector 1st Class / SDM Kashipur for disposing of the suit after giving an opportunity to the plaintiffs as well as to the newly imp-leaded parties. 11. I am not expressing any opinion on the merit of the controversy and it is for the trial court to decide the suit itself in accordance with the law. 12. Subject to the aforesaid .observations, writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.