SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
  1. Home
  2. / Subject
  3. /Code of Civil Procedure

JAI JAI RAM MANOHAR LAL V. NATIONAL BLDG. MATERIAL SUPPLY CO. AIR 1969 SC 1267 (J.C. SHAH, J.)

JAI JAI RAM MANOHAR LAL V. NATIONAL BLDG. MATERIAL SUPPLY CO. AIR 1969 SC 1267 (J.C. SHAH, J.)

 

FACTS

  • Manohar lal (appellant/plaintiff), S/o Jai Jai Ram instituted a suit for decree of ₹10,000 for the timber supplied to the respondent in the name of “Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal” by which the business was carried on.
  • The appellant signed at the foot of the plaint as “Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal, by the pen of Manohar Lal”. However, the respondent contended that the plaintiff was an unregistered firm and hence incompetent to sue.
  • The appellant applied for leave to amend the plaint on 18/07/1952 and described himself in the cause title as “Manohar Lal proprietor of Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal” and to state that he carried on the business in timber in such name and that the name was not fictitious or assumed since it is a joint hindu family business and the respondent knew that the appellant is proprietor along with his father.
  • The respondent filed no reply and the Subordinate judge while granting leave observed that undoubtedly the appellant was the real plaintiff.
  • The respondent in a supplementary written statement contended that the appellant was not the sole owner of the business and most importantly that the amendment was effective from 18/07/1952 when leave to amend was sought and hence was barred by law of limitation.
  • The trial court decreed for ₹6,500. HC on appeal by the respondent observed that the suit was instituted in the name of a non-existing person and since the appellant failed to aver in the amendment application that using the name “Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal” was a bona fide mistake or omission therefore the Subordinate judge was incompetent to grant leave to amend the plaint.
  • The HC also observed that the action must be deemed to be initiated from 18/07/1952 and the amendment could not have retrospective effect therefore it was barred by the law of limitation.
  • Hence the appellant preferred an SLP.

 

ISSUE

  • Whether in an application to amend the plaint, an averment that the mistake was bona fide mandatory?
  • Whether the amended plaint is effective from the date when the original plaint was granted to be amended or when the original plaint was instituted?

 

HELD

The Trial court was right, and HC was in error. The appeal was allowed, the decree passed by the HC was set aside and the case was remanded back to the HC for disposal on merits.

  • Rules of procedure are intended to be a partner to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure.
  • The courts always allow to amend the pleading of a party unless it is satisfied that: (1) the party applying was acting mala fide, or (2) by its blunder, the party had caused injury to the opponent which may not be compensated by an order of costs.
  • However negligent may have been the first omission, and, however late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side.
  • In Amulakchand Mewaram v Babulal Kanalal (AIR 1933 Bom. 304) it was observed that if the suit is brought in the name of a non-existing person then the suit is a nullity and no amendment can cure it. However, if the name in which a suit is brought is merely a misdescription of existing persons then prima facie, there should be an amendment because the general rule is that the court should always allow an amendment where any loss to the opposing party can be compensated for by costs, subject to certain exceptions.
  • The appellant was carrying on business in the name of “Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal” and was competent to sue in his own name as manager of the Hindu Undivided Family.
  • It rejected the observation by the HC that leave to amend cannot be granted because there was no averment that the misdescription was because of a bona fide mistake.
  • There is no rule that the Court has no power to grant leave to amend the plaint if, in an application to amend the plaint, it is not stated that the misdescription is due to a bona fide mistake. The power to grant leave to amend is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any narrow or technical limitations.
  • Since the name in which the suit was instituted was merely a misdescription of the original plaintiff, no question of limitation arose and the court gave the amendment a retrospective effect. It stated that the amended plaint must be deemed to have been instituted on the date when it was originally instituted.
  • Since delay has taken place and a lot of money was put into the dispute because the respondent raised and persisted on a plea having no merit, the court imposed costs on the respondent in SC and HC.

 

COMMENTARY

The rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid (partner) to the administration of justice and they must, therefore, be construed liberally and in such manner as to render the enforcement of substantive rights effective. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. Courts exist for the purpose of doing justice between the parties and not for punishing them, and they are empowered to grant amendments of pleadings in the larger interest of doing full and complete justice to the parties. Where the parties in the plaint are wrongly described, the amendment should be allowed. It is settled law that the amendment can be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side.