Back
2004 Supreme(All) 618
2004 (4) AWC 3597 (LB)
(ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT—LUCKNOW BENCH)
Devi Prasad Singh, J.
Writ Petition No. 1364 of 2004 (M/S)
Decided on March 29, 2004
Ravi Krishna Verma
Versus
Committee of Management, Chutki Bhandar Girls Inter College, Hussainganj, Lucknow and others
Counsel for the Appellant : B. K. Saxena.
Counsel for the Respondents: R. S. Singh, C.S.C.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of interpreting statutory provisions and case laws to determine the legality of an amendment application and the addition of parties.
Headnote:
Amendment - Misdescription of Parties - Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. - Section 80 of C.P.C. - 2003 (1) SCCD 1, 2001 (2) SCC 472, 2001 (1) SCC 555 - The court discussed the amendment application under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. and Section 80 of C.P.C. The judgment of the trial court was challenged, and the court referred to relevant case laws to interpret the provisions and concluded that the impugned orders did not suffer from any impropriety and illegality.
Fact of the Case:
The controversy related to two rival committees of management of a college. The petitioner claimed to be elected as Manager in an election, while the opposite party claimed that a different election was held under the supervision of an authorized controller. A suit for permanent injunction was filed, and an amendment application was moved to add the State of U. P. as a party through the Collector.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned orders did not suffer from any impropriety and illegality and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The issues involved the controversy between two rival committees of management, the amendment application under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C., and the interpretation of Section 80 of C.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. and Section 80 of C.P.C. and referred to relevant case laws to reach its decision.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
Devi Prasad Singh, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri B. K. Saxena and Sri R. S. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 as well as learned standing counsel.
2. Short counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 and 2, is taken on record. Sri B. K. Saxena does not want to file rejoinder-affidavit. With the consent of parties, writ petition is disposed of finally at admission stage.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner controversy relates to two rival committees of management. According to the petitioner’s counsel election of Committee of Management of the College Chutki Bhandar Girls Inter College, Lucknow, was held on 12.8.2001, in which the petitioner was elected as Manager. On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submits that the election was held on 29.4.2001 on the direction of Director under the supervision of authorised controller. In the election held on 29.4.2001 the opposite party No. 2 Shri Om Prakash Sonkar was elected as Manager of the Committee of Management. The submission of the petitioner’s counsel is that in pursuance to the order passed by this Court as well as Apex Court, the present litigation is continuing in the court below.
4. A suit for permanent injunction was filed by opposite party No. 2 and later on relief for declaration was also added by way of amendment. During the course of trial an amendment application was moved under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the C.P.C. read with Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. coupled with Section 151 of C.P.C. By the amendment, plaintiff had proceeded to add the State of U. P. as party through the Collector, apart from praying for other various amendment in the plaint. Copy of the amendment application has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The submission of the petitioner’s counsel is that he has no grievance against the impugned order passed by the trial court allowing the amendment application except to amendment done in pursuance to para 1 of the amendment application. The para 1 of the amendment application which was allowed with consequential benefits by the trial court is reproduced hereunder :
“That in the description of defendant No. 1 the words ‘State of U. P. (through its’ and after the words Joint Director of Education, Intermediate’ the sign of’) may be permitted to be deleted.”
5. A plain reading of para 1 shows that “earlier the State of U. P. through its Joint Director of Education, Intermediate, Lucknow Zone, Lucknow” was defendant No. 1 in the suit. By the proposed amendment the plaintiff had deleted the word “State of U. P. through its” from the array of the parties as defendant No. 1. The consequence of the amendment is that now only “Joint Director of Education, Intermediate, Lucknow Region, Lucknow”, shall be defendant No. 1 in the suit in question.
6. While passing the impugned order and allowing the amendment application, the learned trial court by the impugned order dated 5.2.2004 had allowed the amendment application with the observation that the impugned amendment shall not change the nature of the suit and does not mean to add something new. While allowing the amendment application, the trial court has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and another, 2003 (1) SCCD 1 : 2003 (1) AWC 18 (SC) : (2002) 7 SCC 559 and Raghu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan and others, (2001) 2 SCC 472. Judgment of the trial court was challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The revisional court has dismissed the revision by the impugned judgment dated 15.3.2004 with the finding that the revision was not maintainable.
7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the defendant/ petitioner has approached this Court against the impugned orders as stated herein above. Shri B. K. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his argument and challe
