Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Shalinder Kaur, J.
Ganpati Industries - Appellant
Versus
Spp Food Products Pvt. Ltd - Respondent
CM(M) No. 72 of 2024, CM APPL. No. 2050 of 2024, CM APPL. No. 2049 of 2024
Decided On : 04-03-2024
Amendment of Plaint - Civil Procedure Code - Order VI Rule 17 - Order XXXVII of CPC
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a defendant in a suit for recovery of money, challenged the Trial Court's order allowing the respondent's application to amend the plaint. The respondent sought to amend the plaint to implead partners of the petitioner as defendants and delete one of the existing defendants.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the amendments sought were imperative for proper adjudication of the case and did not fundamentally change the nature of the case. The Court held that the petitioner, being a partnership firm, could be sued in its name as per Order XXX Rule 1 CPC. The Court dismissed the petition and upheld the Trial Court's order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the permissibility of the amendments to the plaint, the applicability of relation back to the date of institution, and the necessity of impleading individual partners of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court applied the principles laid down in Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Purushottam Umedbhai and Co. v. Manilal and Sons to determine the permissibility of the amendments and the applicability of Order XXX Rule 1 CPC. The Court emphasized that the amendments were necessary for proper adjudication and did not fundamentally change the nature of the case.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition and upheld the Trial Court's order allowing the amendments to the plaint.
JUDGMENT
Shalinder Kaur, J. - The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directed against the impugned order dated 04.09.2023 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge-11, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "Trial Court") in CS DJ 613082/2016, titled as 'M/s S.P.P Food Products Pvt. Ltd vs. M/s Ganpati Industries & Anr.' whereby the learned Trial Court allowed the application filed by the respondent under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") for amendment of the plaint. The petitioner herein is defendant no. 1 before the learned Trial Court and the respondent is the plaintiff who has instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,92,281/- along with interest under Order XXXVII of CPC.
2. The relevant facts for the purpose of adjudication of the present case are that M/s Ganpati Industries/petitioner herein is a firm which was allegedly managed and controlled by Mr. Pawan Jain and Mr. Pankaj Jain with its registered office at F-13, Ganpati Plaza, Sector-7, Sikandra, Agra. On the other hand, S.P.P Food Products Pvt. Ltd/respondent herein is a private limited company which deals in production of non-woven fabric for packing material with its registered office at 10678, Jhandewalan Road, Nabi Karim, Near Shankar Paio, Delhi.
3. Petitioner approached the respondent to purchase non-woven fabric for packing material. Thereafter, both the parties entered into an agreement vide which the respondent agreed to supply the said goods and the petitioner agreed to make the payment within 15 days of the purchase. Further, the petitioner also agreed to pay interest of 18% per annum in case of delay in payment.
4. As per the agreement, respondent supplied the said goods which were duly received by the petitioner through various invoices. Petitioner initially made a few payments and then stopped making payments. On 10.09.2014, the respondent served a legal notice upon the petitioner to make the payment of the outstanding amount of Rs. 5,92,281/- along with interest of 18% per annum. Subsequently, Mr. Pawan Jain, who was the authorised representative of defendant no. 1/petitioner herein issued six cheques on behalf of the petitioner in favour of the respondent for a total sum of Rs. 5,92,281/-between the period ranging from 20.09.2014 to 23.05.2015 with the assurance that the same shall be honoured on their presentation.
5. Respondent presented the said cheques for encashment to his bank i.e. State Bank of India and all the cheques were returned as unpaid with remarks "insufficient funds" via returning memo dated 26.05.2015. Therefore, on 30.01.2016, the respondent initiated a suit for recovery of money against the petitioner through Mr. Pawan Jain as well as Mr. Pankaj Jain (defendant no. 2 before the learned Trial Court). A separate proceeding for dishonour of cheques under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter as 'N.I. Act) was also initiated.
6. On 31.07.2016, the respondent preferred an application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC for impleadment of Ms. Renu Jain as proprietor of M/s Ganpati Industries stating that it has come to their knowledge that Mr. Pawan Jain is not the registered owner of the firm even though the said firm was run by him and Mr. Pankaj Jain. On 28.02.2020, the respondent withdrew the suit for recovery of money against Mr. Pawan Jain in view of observations made by the learned Additional District Judge-06, during the proceedings under section 138 of the N.I. Act that Mr. Pawan Jain was not the signatory of the disputed cheques and had no business dealing with the respondent. Further, on request of the learned counsel for the respondent, the present suit was converted to ordinary suit.
7. Thereafter, on 17.05.2023, the respondent filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of plaint. Subsequently, the respondent withdrew both
The amendments sought to the plaint were imperative for proper adjudication of the case and did not fundamentally change the nature of the case. The Court emphasized the applicability of Order XXX Ru....
Substitution of a plaintiff after limitation has expired is valid only from the date of substitution, not retrospectively.
An individual cannot amend her plaint to represent a partnership firm if the firm is unregistered, as it violates Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act.
An amendment to a plaint is permissible if it does not change the nature of the suit or the cause of action and does not prejudice the defendants, as per Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the scope of revisional powers under Section 115 of the CPC and the principles of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
The principle of res judicata prevents re-agitation of previously decided issues in subsequent applications, thus maintaining procedural integrity in litigation.
Amendments to the plaint are permissible to ensure justice, even when a defendant company is dissolved, emphasizing the continuity of liabilities in cases of amalgamation.
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
