RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the plaintiff in a suit before the trial court and with respect to the order dated 27th May, 2008 non-suiting the plaintiff and consigning the file to the record room. The petitioner/plaintiff has been non-suited on an application of the respondent/defendant in the suit, under Order 4 Rule 1(3) of the CPC.

2. The petitioner instituted the suit from which this petition arises for the relief of injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the possession and use of the petitioner of an immovable property.

3. The counsel for the respondent at the outset took a preliminary objection as to the very maintainability of this petition. He contended that the suit before the trial court had been preferred by M/s Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd; however the petition before this court is preferred by M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. He contends that the petitioner herein is not a party to the suit from which the petition arises and there is no explanation therefor in the body of the petition. The attention of the counsel has been invited to the memo of parties, where it has been stated that the said M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd was formerly known as Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd. The counsel however contends that inspite of the change of name having been alleged to be effected long back and during the pendency of the suit before the trial court, no application was moved in the trial court for such change/substitution.

4. Change of name of a corporate entity in terms of Section 21 of the Companies Act is not a case of substitution within the meaning of Order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC inasmuch as there is no assignment or transfer or succession and no change of the entity. The petitioners have before this court filed the certificate of change of name issued by the Registrar of Companies which shows that the name of M/s Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd stands changed to Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. The counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention to the order dated 22nd February, 2007 in FAO (OS) 454/2006 of this court arising from another legal proceeding between the parties relating to the same property. A perusal of the said order shows that a similar plea was taken by the respondent herein before the Division Bench of this court also and was negated. In the circumstances, the preliminary objection of the counsel for the respondent is vexatious and has no force.

5. The counsel for the respondent contends that on the original plaint, there is an endorsement of the reader of the trial court, pursuant to the order for the office to check, that the original documents relied upon by the plaintiff had not been brought to the court. He further contends that the respondent on 23rd February, 2005 filed an application before the trial court averring that the photocopies of the documents filed by the petitioner in support of its claim of title and possession of the suit property do not inspire confidence and for direction to the petitioner to file the original agreement to sell, sale deed, power of attorney on the basis of which sale deed was executed and on the basis whereof the petitioner so claimed title and possession of the property; the petitioner on 25th October, 2005 filed a reply to the said application contesting the same. The respondent thereafter filed an application under Order 4 Rule 1(3) of the CPC for non-suiting the plaintiff for having not filed the original documents before the court.

6. Both the aforesaid two applications were taken up for consideration on 7th May, 2008 when the court noted the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that there was no necessity of filing the original documents on the record. The court however observed that the petitioner inspite of repeated opportunity had not filed any reply to the application of the respondent under Ord