Back
2001 Supreme(HP) 64
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
M.R.VERMA
SWARAN SINGH - Appellant
Versus
PUNJAB KESARI, JALANDHAR - Respondent
OMP No. 366 of 2000 In C.S. No. 17 of 1999
Decided On : 04/26/2001
Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for the Plaintiff; Mr Ravi Bakshi, Advocate for the Defendant No. 1; Mr. Pritam Singh, vice Counsel, for the Defendant Nos. 3 to 5.
Amendments to pleadings should not work injustice to the other side and must be necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.
Headnote:
Amendment - Civil Procedure Code - Order 6 Rule 17, Section 151 - Calcutta High Court in MB. Sirkar and Sons v. Powell and Co., AIR 1956 Calcutta 630 - Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and others, AIR 1957 SC 363
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to correct the name of a defendant and add a company as a party to the suit for compensation for publishing a defamatory news item. The defendant objected on the grounds of limitation and misjoinder of parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the correction of the name of defendant No. 4 but disallowed the amendment to add the company as a party defendant due to the claim against the party being time-barred.
Issues: The issues involved misdescription of parties, substitution of parties, and the effect of amendment on the limitation period for the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while a correction of the name of a defendant could be allowed, the amendment to add a party defendant could not be allowed if it destroyed a valuable right accrued to the opponent due to lapse of time.
Final Decision: The application for amendment was allowed only for the correction of the name of defendant No. 4 and disallowed for adding the company as a party defendant.
M.R. Verma, J.—This is an application moved by the applicant/plaintiff (hereafter referred to as the plaintiff) under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for amendment of plaint on the grounds that because of typographical mistake the name of defendant No. 4 has wrongly been typed as "Jagdish Ram Kaundal" instead of "Jagat Ram Kaundal" and that such mistake came to notice immediately before filing of this application, therefore, the necessary correction of the name of defendant No. 4 may be allowed and that non-applicant/defendant No. 1 (hereafter referred to as D-l) had raised the objection that such defendant could not be sued through Editor because the "Punjab Kesari is the title of the newspaper registered under the name and style of Hind Samachar Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act and while maintaining that Editor can be sued through the title name also it is averred that in view of the disclosure made by D-l, it is "necessary to add the said Company as defendant No. 1 instead of the name earlier mentioned" and that such amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties, therefore, the plaint may be ordered to be suitably amended.
2. The application has been contested by the defendant on the grounds that suit by now has become barred by limitation and the plaintiff, therefore, cannot implead a legal person against whom he has lost his remedy due to law of limitation and otherwise the application is bad for delay and latches. It has further been averred that the suit has been wrongly filed against a non-entity; therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected and in view of the print line describing the particulars of the newspaper, it would have been clear to the plaintiff as to against whom the suit lies but he had not cared to read such print line and that the remedy of the plaintiff against the Hind Samachar Limited sought to be added as a party defendant No. 1, has now become time-barred.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone though the material on record.
4. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present application are that the plaintiff has instituted the suit against the defendants for a decree in the sum of Rs. 5,05,000 on account of compensation for publishing a defamatory news item against him in the Punjab Kesari dated 23. 11.1997 and the Ajeet Samachar dated 24.11.1997 which is pending disposal. In the written statement the D-l, i.e. the Punjab Kesari through its Editor raised the objection regarding mis-joinder of defendant No. 1 as a party to the suit on the ground that the Punjab Kesari is the title of a newspaper registered with the Registrar of Newspapers for India and owned by the Hind Samachar Limited Company, a Company registered under the Companies Act and this is not a person and-a4egal entity, therefore, cannot be sued. It is under these circumstances that the application for amendment has been moved.
5. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff that the suit could be laid as it has been framed but as an abundant caution, he has moved the present application to add the Hind Samachar Ltd. owner of the concerned newspaper as a party to the suit and to rectify a bona fide mistake resulting in mis-description of the party and by the present application such mis-description of the party is sought to be rectified.
6. It is evident from the contents of the application which though at one stage states that the name of the Hind Samachar Ltd. Co. is to be added as a defendant and the proposed amended memo of the parties that the plaintiff is not praying for addition of a party but is in fact praying for substitution of the Hind Samachar Ltd. Cot in place of present D-l.
7. In view of the contention raised for the plaintiff that the defendant can be sued as it has been sued, it will not be proper to make any comment in this regard at this
