Sri A N Amarnath Tandan vs Mr K Suresh on 18 October, 2010

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri A N Amarnath Tandan vs Mr K Suresh on 18 October, 2010

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

 '»E$ANGALO_RE -- _sscI_::.*e8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE___ 
DATED THIS THE 18*" DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VEN.UG.Q'PALl5I"C§L"}3.f§z'»E5}5x   

WRIT PETITION NO.30608120=1QLGM';-CF'C)_"    

BETWEEN:

SRI A N AMARNATH TANDAN
MANAGING DIRECTOR    I 
M/S. JAI BENZO DERIVATIVES.Ex/T.'-_LTjD.  *
OFFICE: 410 COMMERCE HOUSE  E
9/1 CUNNINGHAM ROAD 
BANGALORE ---- 560   

:PETITIONER
(BY SRI S. MA_HHESH..vf?:'O%7?,:_Mv/33.1'/IAI--iEEH811.30., ADVS.)
AND:

MR. K SURESH'  -       V 
S/O DR.P.B._ KUPPUSWAMY  
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

    AAAAA 
M/S. CLASSIC' MEDI..__{1ERB
3/2'/.0 =I5"CRO_SS 4'". MAIN

BEGU'R._R{")AD"'v E'>'Q_M MAINAHALLI

:RESPONDENT

E P__N MANMOHAN, ADV.) ..'*IHIS--EWRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 1'1'ij22_7"OF;THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE . _ UR_'DE~R7DATED 9.9.3.0 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE IN O.S.NO.5683/2005 AT ANNEXURE -- E ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER ORDER VI RULE E7 THIS 9ETITIOi\£ COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARM.!§i'E»iX_Fti'r~t§3 IN 'E GROUP' THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE Fotaeowtisicej':--vi E- ORDER _e__ Respondent / piaintiff filed aE's_ti:it_fforEE"':ecove:'yt"~..ot"._ $155,043/-- with interest and cos.f,a:js:"4"iatgairist~.. .t'i}e::-,1g1($;-Aftvééritfartt /' petitioner by alleging that the.._petitiro'rter:'--isu"ca'rryir§g"*on-'Business in medical herbs and had placed' the respondent for suppiy of "vinc'a'.'--l|;eaves;iwEof the value of %'1,21,0-44/-- having thereof having not been made"deEsA:pi'te:Ei?tt:p~eated:vrequests and demands, the suit was instituted value of the goods i.e., ?1,21,044/--- andOi.r}tevrest__'at.. i'éi% p.a. thereon from 13.6.03 till date 91'"? nEs_t:itu_ti on ''o'.-'* the « suit. ' filed written statement and inter aiia E"Vv.:EEontended.__that,' the suit is bad for non--joinder of necessary and E E' " 'e%o--per parties. " R / _/.

3. Plaintiff filed an LA. under 0 6 R 17 CPC seeking permission of the Court to amend the cause--title. De_fen_d.a"nt filed statement of objections. The Trial Court application and has permitted the plaintifftoéamelndfthveV'c'a,use;._ it title. The said order has been questioned-in itihislvwrit

4. Sri Mahesh, learned V>c.o:unAsel A."appearmg"r..;'for 'the " V petitioner, contends that, the,.suit ha-v--in,g'--.b'e~en insi:'itu.ted'§against Mr. Tandon in his personal"4"ca,p~aci.tQ'.V:ian,j],,th:e"» suit summons having been according'l'y__issued,'the'"belated:application filed, that too, after tria-i" o:f_'tr}_e suit, ought to have been rejected." %T«:C"1',»..V.:t'.'lne Eourt has committed an irrational andii!e'g«al'actV,':.."':;.V"'-V" it .

5. _Sri P'.iai"\: learned counsel appearing for th'eV"respon5deiJt:s on thlelother hand, contends that, there was only'mi:-;f.dersc:i'ipt'i4dia.cf the defendant and immediately upon :1,VJ'no.ticing'th44e miss."-t'<'?71ii%.:~'~'*';V. an application was filed seeking permission ~«.l.to-«..am.end theV__A'cause--title. Learned counsel submits that, the baverrnients.iénade in the plaint when perused would indicate that h was made against the defendant comf:ny and not A / /.

against Mrffandon in his personal capacity. Learned counsel submits that, there was a misdescription in the causegt'i.t|:e.._lo-n account of which, the amendment was sought allowed.

6. Having heard the rival conte.'nti~onsi'..and' perused the writ petition papers, th'e._Vpoint for consideratio-.n..is:

Whether the learned Ciyil fiudg,e.lli:g.j_us.tified' in..aAIlo,wing the application and perm'itt_i"ng_ the-_V.pi'ai'n.ti'ff,_to amend the cause-title of the suit witlhA,_vr.églardidddoestiription of the defendant? ll V' '

7. What 5ma:;"'va.m'ount"*t't;..Amiﬁielscriiption, is stated in the case of M.B. dddd 'SA1%K4iéfii;V"Almf' soiils' Vs. POWELL & co. reported in AIR 4.1955 e3t.r,Ct1i*r§4«- 630, as follows:

" A case can"prop.er1y be to be a case of misdescription V. «_ whenﬂthelA'party, rea1ly__¢intended to be impleaded, had always the sarr1t:«.._and such intention appeared clearly from the ~boc?lylVo:'".,_th_e in spite of the inaccurate description in the cause t'i'tl'j_e and what an amendment does, in such cases, . «V is not tovpadd a new party to the suit. or substitute a new Vlhpaxfty l'o'1i-- the original one, but to make the identity of the "«j3a,rty"'A_origina1ly impleaded clearer by amending or rectifying ' the inaccurate description. When the same person, whether individual or a legal entity, remains the defendant but t only the name is altered, there is a case of amending a misde-scriptio'n .

8. In the case of KURAPATI VENKATA AND ANOTHER vs. THONDEPU RAMASWAMY iiéwb-7 i ANOTHER reported in AIR 1964 that, the piaint couid be amended at any t'i-rrte»--for showing the correct description of thieiparty. _ A

9. In the case of UNIONVAGFAINDIA AND...A.."OTHER vs. SCINDIA STEAMSFiIi?*~ fb; Jump" ANOTHER, reported in 1981(2)j':<LJ €233;itspl:a'int.V_wVas~,.inistituted against the defendants"forr.V:sih§o.rt::fidelijviegrsii damages of the goods entrusted to t'i1en't. it defendant -- 1 SS Co. Ltd. Bombay, were the.,ownVer_sA'o,_f" steamer and defendant 2 who g_ave__'the':g_:';de§i_irery§ at""i~'3va.n«g'aiore SSN Co. was the agent of dete-ndan:t'~ 2 fited a written statement stating that, .""'s.._§hvere wagstno issh_h..e1'oompany as SS Co. Ltd. and defendant--2 _j%'_jwer'e,_Vthe 'owners of the Ship. Piaintiff fiied the application to piaint for correctiy describing defendant 1. It was 'Vf1h_(_=___'|'€ii." that the amendment sought to properly describe defendant \ 1 «- owner of the ship, did not change the cause of action nor would bring any new cause of action and should be ailow.ed..Qﬂ_.

10. in the case of SRI swxmv vIv£§€;:NA_jyi3,_é' VIDYASHALA, SECRETARY & ANOTHER Vs. BAI & ANOTHER reported in 1981:;:A'(1:'):A4g'K.1;J»28$}'*.lTJ.:ggrfV|jBﬁ' petition for eviction, the tenants wter_e descrlibed as*'V--l"$Vecret1aryi, Swamy Vivekananda Vidyashala anjd:the_ Head. :ni*aste':j of the institution". The name ofithe n1ot"V"Swamy Vivekananda Vidyashala" V'i'vei£é1'l?a.'r1da Education and Cultural Socie_ty9"ja;jg.cand 'the was sought for correction oftthle écorrevction was permitted by the Trial Court, llvvhilchvywyosrdjyer"u:a's'::'t;~uestioned by filing a revision petition. The order Trial Court was upheld, as the a:;"hendmeciit related to Vlrnisdescription. the defendant had been described as l"'=fo.llows:' ' Mr. iR._3\l1~ TANDON, Managing Director, * M/_s. Jai Benzo Derivatives Pvt. Ltd.,

- _ .C_)ff'i_ce: 410, Commerce House, 9'/1, Cunningham Road, "?Bangalore - 560 052. "

/,,/' By filing the appiication seeking amendment,___ the defendant was sought to be described as follows:

" M/s. jiai Benzo Derivatives Private Limited, Office: 410, Commerce House, 9/1, Cunningham Road, Bangalore ~ 560 052. 3 Represented by its Managing Directo-r_,l Mr. A.N. Tandon. " _

12. On perusal of the piaint,""iit:i"s» c|ear"thV_a't,fthefcause of action in the suit is on accoun'ct..g_of pvaiymentlvoflthe value of the goods suppiied to the de'fe'nci.a'ntlV The plaintiff makes out a case aglainyfst the de.fen'da'n--t'-rgalfilimited company, carrying on There is neither any change of of nature of the suit. The mistake committedis on'.'~accoui'i't of the negligence. For such an iriadmrertent" :fn:ist.aA.ke,AAx"th'e""party cannot be punished, since "is for administration ofjustice. Th,e.'Tr.:.ali: Court has rightiy noticed the pleadings of ...C.l'tjhe___'p-.arties "and finding that the mésdescription is sought to be C4.»44*i.co'rrected_wpy amending the plaént, has rightly allowed the 'iappilicvaﬁon for amendment. There is neéthergny procedural /"' /.

impropriety nor irrationality much less any illegality in allowing the application. The impugned order is flawless. hitheresuK,the wrm peﬁﬁonis devom ofrneﬂtaﬁdpsoaﬂ standcﬁsnﬁssed. Wu V V No costs.

sac*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court