Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
G.N.Prasad, J.
Mahabir Prasad Singh
Versus
Narmedeshwar Prasad Singh
Civil Revision No. 188 of 1966 ;
Decided On : NOVEMBER 03, 1966
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - ORDER 1 RULE 10 - ORDER 6 RULE 17 - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - SECTION 8 - LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - ARTICLE 69 - Addition of parties - Amendment of plaint - Alternative relief - Limitation - Jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, defendants in a title suit, challenged the trial court's order allowing the plaintiff to add three defendants and amend the plaint to include an alternative relief. The plaintiff sought to add the defendants to avoid future complications and for an effective decision, and the amendment sought to add an alternative relief for the money value of the bullocks in dispute if delivery could not be granted.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the addition of parties did not change the nature of the suit and was within the court's discretion under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court also held that the amendment of the plaint to add an alternative relief was permissible under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even though the fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation, as the power of amendment can be exercised in the interests of justice.
Issues: 1. Whether the addition of parties changed the nature of the suit? 2. Whether the amendment of the plaint to add an alternative relief was permissible?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The addition of parties did not change the nature of the suit as the plaintiff sought a declaration of title to the bullocks in the presence of both the original defendants and the proposed defendants, and the nature of the suit remained the same. 2. The amendment of the plaint to add an alternative relief was permissible as the power of amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be exercised in the interests of justice, even if the fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision application and upheld the trial court's order allowing the addition of parties and the amendment of the plaint.
G.N.Prasad, J.
1. The petitioners, who are the principal defendants in Title Suit No. 12 of 1962. have preferred this civil revision application against the order of the learned Additional Munsif, Second Court, Patna, dated the 11th November, 1965. By that order, the court below dealt with two petitions filed by the plaintiff in the suit, one of the petitions was filed on the 3rd August. 1965 and that was for adding three persons, namely, Jhalak Prasad Singh, Kapildeo Singh and Dwarika Gope, as defendants in the suit. According to the plaintiff, these three persons were sought to be added as parties to the suit to avoid future litigations and complications and for an ef fective and final decision in the suit. The second petition of the plaintiff, which was filed on the 9th August. 1965 was for amendment of the plaint and addition of certain alternative reliefs.
2. Both the petitions were opposed on behalf of defendants 1 and 2 on a variety of grounds; but after hearing the parties and considering the objections of the petitioners, the court below by the impugned order has allowed both the applications.
3. Mr. A.K. Roy, in support of this application, put forward the contention that the order of the court below is illegal and without jurisdiction, and that both the petitions of the plaintiff ought, in the circumstances of this case, to have been rejected.
4. It is the settled practice of this Court that where two distinct matters are dealt with by one order of the court below, then the party aggrieved thereby must file separate revision Applications challenging in each the two distinct matters respectively in regard to which it seeks the interference of this Court. Therefore, if the petitioners were aggrieved by the orders of the court below in respect of both the matters, namely, the addition of party and the amendment of the plaint by addition of a new relief, then they ought to have preferred separate revision applications in respect of each of those two matters. Since that has not been done, the petitioners would ordinarily be called upon to confine the revision application to one of the two matters dealt with in the impugned order. However, in the present case, I do not propose to dispose of this application on that footing; in other words, I will deal with the application with regard to both the matters about which the petitioners feel aggrieved.
5. I first take up the question of addition of party. As already stated, three persons are sought to be added as party defendants to the action on the footing that that would enable the Court to give an effective decision in the suit, and future complications and litigations would be avoided. Whether these grounds can be said to be well founded or not, it is manifest that there is no substance in the argument put forward on behalf of the petitioners that the mere addition of parties would change the nature of the suit One of the reliefs which the plaintiff has sought in the original plaint is for a declaration that five heads of bullocks described in schedule 1 of the plaint belonged to the plaintiff and not to defendants 1 and 2. It is manifest that the plaintiff would like this declaration to be made not only in the presence of defendants 1 and 2 but also in the presence of the three persons sought to be added as defendants in the suit. Nevertheless, the nature of the suit remains the same and it is not in any way affected by adding three more defendants therein.
Furthermore, it will appear from the body of the plaint, and, in particular, from paragraphs 10 and 11 thereof that the three proposed defendants are not entirely new persons sought to be added. The truth is that a specific reference to them has been made in the averments contained in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the original plaint. Be that as it may, it is manifest that it is for the court below to feel satisfied as to whether or not it should exercise its powers under Order 1. Rule 10 of the Code, and in a case l
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
