2008 Supreme(Raj) 2122
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
Kishan Chand Bothra & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Lal Chand Bothra - Respondent
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 240, 7474 and 7475 of 2007.
Decided On : 1-07-2008
For the Petitioners(defendants Nos. 2 and 5):Mr. S.D. Vyas, Advocate.
For the non-petitioner No. 1 in CR No.240.2007 and respondent No.2 in CWP Nos. 7474 and 7475 of 2007 (plaintiff):Mr. L.K. Purohit, Advocate.
In cases of misdescription of a party, the suit remains instituted from the date of presentation of the plaint.
Headnote:CLERICAL ERROR - ALTERATION OF DEFENDANT'S NAME - Code of Civil Procedure (Order I Rule 10, Order 6 Rule 17) - The court allowed the plaintiff's application to alter the name of the defendant firm from "M/s Bikaner Woolen Mills International" to "M/s B.W.M. International" as it was a clerical error. The court held that it was a case of misdescription of a party and not substitution or addition of a party, therefore, the suit remained instituted from the date of presentation of the plaint. The court relied on the decision in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply (AIR 1969 SC 1267) to support its conclusion. The court also rejected the argument of the defendants that the suit was barred by limitation, stating that the provisions of Section 21 of the Limitation Act did not apply in cases of misdescription of a party. The court dismissed the revision petition and the writ petitions, emphasizing that the writ jurisdiction should be sparingly exercised and within a reasonable time limit.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed three civil suits for money recovery against the defendant firm "M/s Bikaner Woolen Mills International." The plaintiff later realized that it was a clerical error and sought to alter the defendant's name to "M/s B.W.M. International."Finding of the Court:
The court found that it was a case of misdescription of a party and allowed the plaintiff's application to correct the defendant's name.Ratio Decidendi:
In cases of misdescription of a party, the suit remains instituted from the date of presentation of the plaint. The provisions of Section 21 of the Limitation Act do not apply in such cases. Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and the writ petitions, stating that the writ jurisdiction should be exercised within a reasonable time limit. The defendants were ordered to pay costs to the plaintiff.
"ykypUn cksFkj iq= Lo0 Jh rkyey cksFkjk tkfr cksFkjk mez 68 o"kZ fuoklh b.MLV~h;y ,fj;k jkuh cktkj chdkusjA 1- eSa] chdkusj owyu feYl bUVjus'kuy] IykWV ua0 1&ch] 1&Mh] b.MLV~h;y ,fj;k jkuh cktkj chdkusjA tfj;s izcU/kd Hkkxhnkj esa] chdkusj owyu feYl bUVjus'kuyA iz/kku dk;kZy; 4 ehj cksgj ?kkV LV~hV dydrk&7 2- fdlu pUn cksFkjk iq= Lo0 jkorey cksFkjk) 3- t;pUn yky cksFkjk iq= Jh fdlu pUn cksFkjk) 4- jktdqekj cksFkjk iq= Jh fdlu cksFkjk) 5- Js;ka'k cksFkjk iq= Jh t;pUn yky cksFkjk) 6- Lo.kZ yrk cksFkjk W/o Jh fdlu pUn cksFkjk) Hkkxhnkj reke eS0 chdkusj oqyu feYl b.Vjus'kuy fuoklhx.k ,&144 lknqy xat chdkusj"
"16- ;g fd oknh us xyr ,oa vlR; rF;ksa ij vk/kkfjr okn izLrqr fd;k gSA eSllZ chdkusj owyu feyk bUVjus'kuy uke dh dksbZ Hkkxhnkjh QeZ vfLrRo esa ugha gSA ,slh QeZ IykWV uEcj 1&ch] 1&lh] 1&Mh b.MLV~h;y ,fj;k jkuh cktkj chdkusj esa fLFkr ugha gSA izfroknhx.k ,slh QeZ ds ikVZuj ugha gSA17- ;g fd vnkyr okyk dk lEeu izfroknhx.k ij Hkkxhnkj eSllZ chdkusj owyu feYl bUVjus'kuy fuoklhx.k ,&144] lknqyxat chdkusj ds irs ij Hksts x;s gSA izfroknhx.k bl rFkkdfFkr QeZ ds ikVZuj ugha gksus ds dkj.k mu ij xyr lEeu rkehy djok;sa x;s gSA dkuwuh isfpnfx;ksa ls cpus ds fy;s ,oa lgh fLFkfr vnkyr okyk le{k ykus ds fy, izfroknhx.k dk mij of.kZr vuqlkj dFku gS fd QeZ eS% chdkusj oywu feYl bUVjus'kuy uke dh u rks dksbZ QeZ vfLrRo esa gS vkSj uk gh mRrjnkrk izf