Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, 1969
This case pertains to the amendment of pleadings, as outlined in Rule 17 of Order VI of the CPC. This provision explicitly allows for the amendment or alteration of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. Under this rule, the Court is empowered to permit such amendments to ensure the real question in controversy is effectively determined.
Facts of the Case
The appellant, Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal, had filed a suit under a trade name rather than his individual name. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff lacked locus standi, as the trade name was not a registered entity and therefore could not file a suit. The appellant sought to rectify this by amending the plaint to substitute his personal name as the plaintiff, claiming it was an inadvertent mistake. However, the trial court rejected the amendment request, holding that it would amount to substituting a new cause of action and a new party, which is not permissible under the law.
The appellant appealed the decision, and the case ultimately reached the Supreme Court of India.
Issues Before the Court
Judgment
The High Court erred in treating the plaintiff as a "non-existent person," as the case involved an existing individual who was merely misdescribed. It is not mandatory for an amendment application to expressly state that the omission or misdescription was due to a bona fide mistake in order to grant leave for amendment. Regardless of how negligent or careless the initial omission may have been, or how late the proposed amendment is made, the amendment can be permitted as long as it does not cause injustice to the opposing party. In cases of misdescription, the question of limitation does not arise.
It is a well-established principle that amendments should generally be allowed to address the real issues in dispute, provided no injustice is caused to the other party by permitting the amendment. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside. The plaintiff was granted leave to amend the suit. The misdescription of the plaintiff's name was deemed immaterial, as it did not raise any issue of limitation. The defendant was ordered to pay the costs incurred in both the Supreme Court and the High Court.
Legal Concepts and Provisions
Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
This rule provides for the amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings to determine the real question in controversy between the parties. However, it imposes a limitation that amendments should not alter the cause of action or substitute one party for another unless such substitution is necessary for determining the real issue.