9911796707
TMI Blog1954 (12) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ff to sue as the joint family manager, he will lose valuable plea of limitatioin. The District Munsif upheld the objection of thedefendant and dismissed the amendment application. This Civil Revision Petition is filed as against that order. (2) The short point for consideration is as to whether by permitting the plaintff to sue as the manager of the joint family a new case is introduced or the cause of action is in any way altered. The language of Or. 6R. 17, Civil P. C., is very wide. It enacts that: the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvations are as follows: The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that really a suit by a person like the plaintff, who happens to be the manager of the joint family at the time he filed the suuit, would be a suit filed by him as manager, whether be described himself like that or not as in the ordinary case of a Hindu familky manager suing on a promissory note or even on a sale deed that no question of limitation of a fresh cause of action would arise and that the plaintiff's only intention in filing the amendment petition was to describe himself more fully and correctly and to have an issue framed regarding his being the family manager on the dateof the suit and not to enlarge the scope of the claim in the suit or to defeat any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd confuses a legal right accrued with a mere right to plead. The object of the decisions is to secure the former and not the latter right of the defendant. I follow the reasoning of the learned Judge and hold that courts of law should bear in mind the sacred duty of doing justice between the parties in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. They do not exist for the purpose of punishing the parties. Rules of procedure are not framed to defeat justice. when the other party can be compensated by way of costs or other proper terms, the amendment ought not to be refused on the sole ground of delay or neligence. (5) The District Munsiff also relied on the decision in -- 'Gopalakrishnamurhty v. Sreedhara Rao ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mendment were known to the party at the time of filing the plaint or the written statement. (6) The learned Advocate for the respondent relied on the decision in -- 'Lloyds Bank Limited v. Suromull Jalar', AIR 1926 Cal 1112 (G), in support of the proposition that I should not interfere with the discretion exercised by the District Munsif in refusing the amendment. The view of the Madras HighCourt laid down in 'Ramachandra Raju v. Venkata Subbayamma', AIR 1916 Mad 903 (H) is different I prefer to follow the Madras view and hold that interlocutory orders refusing amendment or allowing amendment should be corrected at the earliest stage in revisioin and not in appeal afterthe parties incur heavy expenses, I therefore, do n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
