TMI Blog1910 (2) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, and the case of the appellant throughout has been that the name was omitted by the mistake of the writer who drew up the power-of-attorney. The Officer of the Court who examined the application overlooked this defect, though he found out that the application was not in order, as the properties sought to be attached had been imperfectly described. On the 2nd July 1908, the application was returned to the filing pleader for amendment within seven days. The application was amended, and refiled on the 6th July following. It was thereupon registered, and notices were directed to be issued on the judgment-debtor under Section 248 of the Civil Procedure Code. On the 5th August the judgment-debtor filed his objections. One of these was that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 10th September that Gopi Nath had written authority to appear on behalf of the decree-holder, and the application treated as made on that day was obviously barred by limitation; on the other hand, the application could not be validated by the subsequent signature of the pleader who had appeared in the original suit. In other words, according to the District Judge the application was inoperative, because it had been signed and presented by a mukhtiar who had no written authority at the time, and had not been signed by the pleader who might, at that time, have filed it. In this view the District Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the application for execution. 4. The decree-holder has now appealed to this Court, and on her beh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Court. Section 37, which deals with recognised agents, specifies the classes of persons by whom appearances, applications, and acts may be made or done on behalf of the parties. The second clause of the section deals with certificated mukhtiars, who, when holding special powers-of-attorney authorising them to do on behalf of their principals such acts as may legally be done by mukhtiars, may appear or act. Under the rules of this Court, a certificated mukhtiar is authorised to file an application for execution (Rules and Circular Orders, Chapter XI, Article 34). Section 37 of the Code, however, does not define a power-of-attorney, nor is any definition given elsewhere in the Civil Procedure Code, or in the General Clauses Act. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated by a subsequent amendment. In our opinion there is no reasonable doubt that the Court has inherent power to allow such amendment to be made, and that the amended power takes effect from the date when it was originally filed. 8. In the first place, it is clear upon the authorities that a Court has inherent power, in any particular case, to adopt such procedure as may be necessary to enable it to do that justice for the administration of which alone it exists: Panchanan Singha Roy v. Dwarka Nath Roy (1905) 3 C.L.J. 29, Hukum Chand Boid v. Kamalanand Singh (1905) I.L.R. 33 Calc. 927. As Mr. Justice Mahmood observed in Narsingh Das v. Mangal Dubej (1882) I.L.R. 5 All. 163, the Courts are not to act upon the principle that every pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be allowed to prejudice the substantial rights of the party in favour of whose opponent the amendment is allowed, but observing due caution in that regard, the time and extent of each amendment are in the judicial discretion of the Court: Hardin v. Boyd (1884) 113 U. Section 756, Codington v. Maff (1862) 14 N.J. Eq. 430;82 Am. Dec. 258. 9. In a case like the present, where there is no doubt as to the fact that the mukhtiar who filed the application for execution had in fact authority from the decree-holder, and that his name was omitted by mistake from the power-of-attorney, it is, in our opinion, reasonable to hold that the Court may in its discretion allow the power to be, amended upon proper application by the decree-holder for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 I.A. 126. In other cases of amendments also, for instance, amendments of applications for execution of decrees, the amended application has been treated, for purposes of limitation, as if it had been presented in its amended form on the original date: Fuzloor Ruhman v. Altaf Hossen (1884) I.L.R. 10 Calc. 541, Macgregor v. Tarini Churn Sircar (1886) I.L.R. 11 Calc. 124, Jiwat Dube v. Kali Charan Ram (1896) I.L.R. 20 All. 478, Shama Prosad Ghose v. Taki Mullik (1901) 5 C.W.N. 816, which were not referred to in Raghunatha Thaha Chariar v. Venkatesa Tawker (1902) I.L.R. 26 Mad. 101, where a different view was taken. In fact, when an amendment has been properly made, and the cause of action is not altered, the amended pleading may properly be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
