1986 Supreme(MP) 594

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
K. N. SHUKLA, J.
Narpat Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. - Respondent
C. R. No. 114 of 1986 (I)
Decided on : 24-04-1986

Headnote:(1) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O.1, R. 10 and O. 6, R. 17 – person sought to be impleaded neither necessary not proper party – impleading rightly refused.

       (2) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O.6, R. 17 – amendment sought to correct description of Rules – ought to have been allotted.

        Short Note

       1. The plaintiff bas sought a declaration that the departmental enquiry instituted against him be quashed. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff wanted to add the then Collector Shri Amarsingh as a party on the ground that the order passed by Shri Amarsingh about relieving the applicant from the post of Dy. Collector in pursuance of his transfer from Jhabua to Umaria was malafide and not in accordance with the Financial rules. The Court below was of the view that the amendment was not relevant and Shri Amarsingh could not be joined as a party keeping in view the nature of the relief claimed by the plaintiff – applicant.

       2. Held : Having heard the applicant in person I am of the view that this revision has to be dismissed subject to only one modification. The relief about quashing of departmental enquiry is directed against the State of M. P., the then Collector Shri Amarsingh is not directly involved in it except to the extent that he reported that the applicant has been relieved pursuant to his transfer to Umaria.

       3. The applicant contends that he wants to joint Shri Amarsingh as a party to avoid the possibility of the failure of the suit on the ground of non – joinder because he has alleged malafides against him.

       4. This apprehension is absolutely imaginary. After examining the pleadings and the relief claimed by the applicant I am convinced that the Court below rightly rejected the amendment application so far as the joinder of Shri Amarsingh is concerned.

       5. The plaintiff – applicant by the same application wanted to amend the description of the rules in plaint para one from M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) rules 1961 to M. P. Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1965. There was no justification for disallowing the request for amending the mis – description of the rules in para one. 'The application for amendment to this extent is allowed and the plaintiff applicant is permitted to change the description in para one of the plaint of M. P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) rules 1961 to M. P. Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1965. There was no justification for disallowing the request for amending the mis – description of the rules in para one. The application for amendment to this extent is allowed and the plaintiff applicant is permitted to change the description in para one of the plaint of M. P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) rules 1961 and substitute the same by M. P. Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1965. This amendment should be carried out within a fortnight from today.

       Revision partly allowed.