(1) S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 240/2007.

(Kishan Chand Bothra & Anr. Vs. Lal Chand Bothra & Ors.)

.......

(2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7474/2007.

(Kishan Chand Bothra & Anr. Vs. A.D.J. No.1, Bikaner & Ors.)

.....

(3) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7475/2007.

(Kishan Chand Bothra & Anr. Vs. A.D.J. No.1, Bikaner & Ors.)

....

Date of Order :: 1^st July 2008.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Mr. S.D. Vyas, for the petitioners (defendants Nos. 2 and 5).

Mr. L.K. Purohit, for the non-petitioner No.1 in CR No.

240.2007 and respondent No.2 in CWP Nos. 7474/2007 and

7475/2007 (plaintiff)

...

BY THE COURT:

These three matters, one civil revision petition under

Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CR No.

240/2007), and two writ petitions under Articles 226/227 of the

Constitution of India (CWP Nos. 7474/2007 and 7475/2007)

having been filed against similar nature orders dated

26.04.2007 as passed by the Additional District Judge No.1,

Bikaner respectively in Civil Suits Nos. 44/2005, 42/2005 and

45/2005; and involving the same parties and similar nature

issues, have been heard together and are taken up for

disposal by this common order.

By the impugned similar nature orders dated

26.04.2007, the learned Trial Court has allowed the

1

applications moved in the respective civil suits by the plaintiff

Lal Chand under Order I Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule 17 of

the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to alter the name of the

defendant No.1 firm from “M/s Bikaner Woolen Mills

International” to “M/s B.W.M. International” while accepting the

submissions of the plaintiff that earlier stated description of the

defendant-firm in the plaint had been a bona fide clerical error.

The petitioners are the defendants Nos. 2 and 5 in the said

civil suits.

The background facts and relevant aspects of the

matter are that the plaintiff Lal Chand Bothra has filed the

aforesaid three civil suits for money recovery; and from the

copy of the plaint relating to Civil Suit No. 44/2005, as placed

on the record of CR No. 240/2007, it appears that the plaintiff

has claimed money decree against the defendants with the

submissions that his late mother had deposited certain amount

with the defendant firm that has been duly shown in its books

of accounts and balance confirmation had been issued on

behalf of the defendant firm upto 31.03.2003 but not

thereafter, despite demands. The plaintiff has alleged himself

being entitled to one-third of the amount deposited by his late

mother in the defendant firm.

The plaintiff has stated the cause title of the suit as

under:-

2

“ललचन बथर पत स. श तजमल बथर जतत बथर उम 68 र

तस इणस यल एर य र बजर बक$र ।

बम

1.

म&. बक$र 'ल तमलस इन)र$शल, पल,) -. 1-ब, 1-स, 1-

इणस यल एर य र बजर बक$र । जररय$ पबन0क/ भगर

म&. बक$र 'ल तमलस इन)र$शल ।

प0 कयलय 4 मर बहर घ) स ) कलकत-7

2.ककस चन बथर पत स रतमल बथर } भगर तमम

3.जयचन लल बथर पत श ककस चन बथर} म&. बक$र

4.रजक मर बथर पत श ककस चन बथर } ल तमलस

5.श$य-श बथर पत श जयचन लल बथर } इण)र$शल

6.सर लत बथर w/o श ककस चन बथर } तस गर

ए-144 सल

ग-ज बक$र"

The petitioners Kishan Chand Bothra and Shreyansh

Bothra, defendants Nos. 2 and 5, have filed their written

statement in the respective suits and, from the copy of the

written statement in relation to Civil Suit No. 44/2005, it is

made out that they have denied existence of defendant No.1

firm and have specifically stated that there was no such

partnership firm “M/s Bikaner Woolen Mills International” and

they are not the partners of any such alleged firm. While

taking other objections regarding competence of the claim of

the plaintiff, the defendants-petitioners have stated their

objections regarding the defendant No.1 firm in the following

terms :-

“16.

यह कक