1969 (3) TMI 71 - SC - Indian Laws

Power to grant amendment of the pleadings - Held that - Appeal allowed. The power to grant amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitations. Since the name in which the action was instituted was merely a misdescription of the original plaintiff, no question of limitation arises - the plaint must be deemed on amendment to have been instituted in the name of the real plaintiff, on the date on which it was originally instituted - the order passed by the Trial Court in granting the amendment was clearly right. The proceedings will stand remanded to the High Court for disposal according to law on the merits of the dispute between the parties.

Summary

Issues:
1. Competency to sue of an unregistered firm.
2. Validity of amendment to the plaint.
3. Effect of misdescription in the name of the plaintiff on the suit.
4. Application of the law of limitation in the case.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Competency to sue of an unregistered firm:
The case involved a dispute where the plaintiff, an unregistered firm, initiated legal action against the defendant for recovery of dues. The defendant contended that the plaintiff, being an unregistered firm, was incompetent to sue. The Trial Judge initially decreed the claim, but the matter was appealed to the High Court on the grounds of the plaintiff's competency to sue as an unregistered firm.

2. Validity of amendment to the plaint:
The plaintiff sought leave to amend the plaint to rectify the misdescription in the name under which the action was initiated. The Subordinate Judge granted leave to amend the plaint, considering the misdescription as a procedural error that could be rectified without causing injustice to the defendant. However, the High Court disagreed with this decision, stating that the action was instituted in the name of a "non-existing person" and that the Subordinate Judge was wrong in allowing the amendment.

3. Effect of misdescription in the name of the plaintiff on the suit:
The High Court held that the suit initiated in the name of a non-existing entity was a nullity and, therefore, the amendment to rectify the misdescription could not be allowed. It was emphasized that the action should have been instituted in the name of the Karta of the Hindu undivided family or with all the members of the joint family as plaintiffs. The misdescription in the plaintiff's name was considered a critical flaw that rendered the suit legally defective.

4. Application of the law of limitation in the case:
The High Court further ruled that the amendment to the plaint took effect from a specific date, and as a result, the suit was deemed to be instituted on that date. This raised concerns regarding the applicability of the law of limitation to the suit. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's decision, arguing that the misdescription was a procedural error that did not affect the validity of the suit.

In its final judgment, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of allowing amendments to pleadings to ensure justice is served, unless there is evidence of mala fide intent or irreparable harm to the opposing party. The Court highlighted previous cases where misdescriptions were rectified through amendments to uphold the principle of determining the real issues in a dispute. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision, stating that the misdescription in the plaintiff's name was a procedural error that did not invalidate the suit. The case was remanded to the High Court for further proceedings based on the merits of the dispute, with costs awarded against the defendant for persisting in a meritless plea.