Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1969 (3) TMI 71

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... amendment was clearly right. The proceedings will stand remanded to the High Court for disposal according to law on the merits of the dispute between the parties. - Civil Appeal No. 697 of 1966. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 9, 1964 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 257 of 1953. - - - Dated:- 17-3-1969 - Shah, J. C. And Grover, A. N,JJ. S. C. Manchanda, S. k. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for the appellant. Bishan Narain and Harbans Singh, for the respondent. JUDGMENT The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. On March 11, 1950, Manohar Lal s/o Jai Jai Ram commenced an action in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nanital, for a decree for Rs. 10,139/12/- being the value .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion, and that the "amendment was intended to bring what in effect had been done in conformity with what in fact should have been done". The defendant then filed a supplementary written statement raising two additional contentions-(1) that Manohar Lal was not the sole owner of the business and that his other brothers were also the owners of the business; and (2) that in any event the amendment became effective from July 18, 1952, and on that account the suit was barred by the law of limitation. The Trial Judge decreed the claim for Rs. 6,568/6/3. Against that decree an appeal was preferred to the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court being of the view that the action was instituted in the name of a "non-existing person" and Manohar Lal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ment could not take effect retrospectively and on the date of the amendment the action was barred by the law of limitation. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court with special leave. The order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained. Rules of procedure are intended to, be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensed for by an order of costs. However negligent or careless may ha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ht in the name of a firm in a case not within 0. 30 C.P. Code being in fact a case of misdescription of existing persons, leave to amend ought to have been given. This Court considered a somewhat similar case in Purushottam Umedbhai's case(1). A firm carrying on business outside India filed a suit in the firm name in the High Court of Calcutta for a decree for compensation for breach of contract. The plaintiff then applied for amendment of the plaint by describing the names of all the partners and striking out the name of the firm as a mere misdescription. The application for amendment was rejected on the view that the original plaint was no plaint in law and it was not a case of misnomer or misdescription, but a case of a non- existent fir .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Code (or possibly under 0. VI, r. 17, about which we say nothing), an amendment of the plaint to enable a proper description of the plaintiffs to appear in it in order to assist the Court in determining the real question or issue between the parties." These cases do no more than illustrate the well-settled rule that all amendments should be permitted as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties, unless by permitting the amendment injustice may result to the other side. In the present case, the plaintiff was carrying on business as commission agent in the name of "Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal. The plaintiff was competent to sue in his own name as Manager of the Hindu undivided family .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates