TMI Blog1933 (3) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould be amended by substituting the names of the three members of the joint family for the name of the family firm as plaintiffs. The defendant was prepared to agree to that amendment, and the terms of a consent order were actually settled, but the defendant contended that he would be entitled to the costs of amending the written statement. That contention would seem to me to have been well-founded, but the plaintiffs objected to it, and in consequence the proposed amendment was not proceeded with. The result was that the suit came on for trial in due course in 1932, and at the hearing the plaintiffs asked to be allowed to amend the plaint by substituting the names of the members of the joint family for the name of the family firm. That am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the proposed alteration does not involve introducing new plaintiffs, but merely involvee describing correctly, rather than incorrectly, the plaintiffs already before the Court. I think that was the basis of the decision of Mr. Justice Crump and the Court of Appeal in Ramprasad v. Shrinivas , though the actual decision in that case turned on the effect of the Indian Limitation Act having regard to an amendment which had been allowed. The learned Advocate General on behalf of the respondent has relied on a decision of Mr. Justice Blackwell in Vyankatesh Oil Mill v. Velmahomed (1927) 30 Bom, L.R. 117. I must confess that I have some difficulty in following both the reasons and the conclusion of the learned Judge in that case. It was a case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rying the amendment through in 1926 and waiting up to the hearing, we can only give them leave on somewhat drastic terms as to costs. The plaintiffs must pay the costs up to and including the hearing and must also pay the costs of the necessary amendment of the plaint, that is their own costs, and the defendant's costs of any supplemental written statement. With regard to the costs of the appeal, I should say that prima facie if leave to amend is refused and a successful appeal is brought the appellant ought to have the costs of the appeal, and I do not read the decision in Gunnaji Bhawji v. Makanji Khoosalchand (1909) I.L.R. 34 Bom. 250, s. c. 10 Bom. L.R. 969, on which the learned Advocate General relies, as laying down any general ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
