The main legal point established in the judgment is that the impleadment of new defendants and the amendment of the plaint must not be barred by a previous order or by limitation. Additionally, any proposed amendment must not introduce a new cause of action or change the nature of the suit.

JAYANT NATH, J.

IA No.7591/2006 & IA No.9204/2007

1. The plaintiff has filed the present two applications. IA No.7591/2006 is filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of defendants No.2 to 10, namely, Mr.Ajay Khandelwal as defendant No.2, Mrs. Vijay Prabha Khandelwal as defendant No.3, Mrs. Deepika Khandelwal as defendant No.4, Mr.Madan Lal Gupta as defendant No.5, Ram Charitable Trust as defendant No.6, Miss Mausumi Bhattacherjee as defendant No.7, Mr.Mahesh Sharma as defendant No.8, Mr.Satya Prakash Khandelwal as defendant No.9 and Arjun Industries as defendant No.10.

2. IA No.9204/2007 is filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint.

3. The facts giving rise to these two applications are common. Hence, the same are being disposed of by a common order.

4. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking a decree of Rs.2,34,44,300/-against the defendant. The plaint is short and bereft of details. It is the contention of the plaintiff in the plaint that the plaintiff entered into a MOU dated 1.11.1994 with the defendant whereby the defendant agreed to sell the Trust Property of Ram Charitable Trust bearing Khasra No.225, Village Bhojpura, Jaipur measuring approximately 11,060 sq. yards and another plot being Khasra No.220, Village Bhojpura situated in village Bhojpura, Jaipur measuring approximately 8000 sq. yards. The responsibility of effecting transfer was on the defendant and all charges for clearance from appropriate authorities for construction of a Five Star hotel project was also the responsibility of the defendant.

5. The plaintiff is stated to have paid vide Cheque dated 25.10.1994 for Rs.5 lacs and Cheque No.29203 dated 20.03.1995 for a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/-being a total of Rs.1,55,00,000/-. The total agreed consideration was Rs.3,00,00,000/-out of which the said Rs.1,55,00,000/-was paid to the defendant.

6. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant failed to perform its obligations under the MOU. Hence, the present suit for recovery of dues with interest.

7. The suit was filed on 20.03.1998. Mr.Anand Khandelwal who was impleaded as Managing Trustee of M/s. Ram Charitable Trust, Jaipur died on 27.10.1999.

8. The plaintiff filed IA No.11960/1999 to implead the LRs of Shri Anand Khandelwal. The plaintiff also thereafter filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, but withdrew the same with liberty to file a fresh application. As no steps were taken by the plaintiff thereafter, on 26.08.2002 the suit was adjourned sine die to be revived only when an application is filed by the plaintiff. The suit was revived by the Court on 15.09.2005 suo motto

9. On 25.03.2008 this Court dismissed IA No.11960/1999 which was filed by the plaintiff under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC. The Court concluded that the plaintiff had not sued Mr.Anand Khandelwal in his individual capacity but as Managing Trustee of Ram Charitable Trust, Jaipur. No relief was sought against Anand Khandelwal in his personal capacity. Hence, the application to implead the personal legal heirs of deceased Shri Anand Khandelwal was rejected.

10. Now, the plaintiff has filed the present two applications. The two applications are based on common facts and are inter-dependent on each other inasmuch as the impleadment of new defendants is sought based on additional facts which are sought to be added to the plaint by means of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The two applications are hence dealt with together being in effect a composite application.

11. IA No.7591/2006 (Order I Rule 10 CPC) gives a narration in detail of the facts as to how the transaction took place between the plaintiff and defendant/Mr.Anand Khandelwal and as to why proposed defendants No.2 to 10 are necessary and proper parties. It is urged that on 1.11.1994 the defendant alongwith his son Shri Ajay Khandelwal and proposed defendant No.2, Shri Madan Lal Gupta father of Shri Anand Khandelwal and proposed defendant No.5 approached