LexGANESH TRADING CO. versus MOJI RAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
8
c
E
F
G
H
614
GANESH TRADING CO.
v.
MOJI RAM
January 25, 1978
[M. H. BEG, C. J. AND D. A. DESAI, J.]
Civil Procedure Code, Order 6 Rule 17-Amendment of
pleadings,
when
{
'J.ernzissible-"New cause of action" whether constituted by
staternent of
in-
a.1vertently omitted essential fact.
The appellant-plaintiff firm had filed a suit through one of its partners, for
recovery of Rs. 68,000 /- due under a promissory note.
After the written state-
ment had been duly filed, an amendn1ent of the plaint was applied for, on the
ground that the plaintiff had inadvertently omitted to mention the essential fact
that the firm had actually been dissolved before the institution of the suit. The
Trial Court, and the High Court, in revision, refused to a11ow the amendment
on the ground that it would amount to the introduction of a new time
barred
cause Of action.
Allowing the appeal the ~ourt,
HELD : In a suit institut.ed by one of the partners of a dissolved firm, the
mere specification of the capacity in which the suit was filed could not change
the character of the suit or the case.
Even where an essential fact is lacking
from averments in the plaint, the cause of action will be defective btJt this does
not, by itself, necessarily constitute a new cause of action if the plaint is amen-
ded.
[619 F, 618 A]
However negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and how-
ever late tbe proposed amendment, the amendment may be. allowed if it can
be made without injustice to the other side subject to conditions such as pay-
ment of costs.
[619 A-BJ
Jai Jai Rani Manohar Lal v. National Building Materinl Supply, Gurgaon,
\.-
1970(1) S.C.R. 22-A.l.R. 1969 S.C. 1267, followed.
Charan Das v. Amir Khan, 47 I.A. 255; L. J. Leach & Co. Ltd. v. Jardine
Skinner & Co., 1957 S.C.R. 438, applied.
Mohan Singh v. Kanshi Rani, 1976 C.L.J. (Civil) p.
135,
lppili
Satya-
narayana v. The Amadalavalasa Cooperative Agricultural and Industrial Society
Ltd., A.I.R. 1975 A.P. 22, Agarwal Jorawarmal & Anr. v. Karan1 & Anr.; A.l.R.
19, Nagpur 31; A. K. Gupta & Sons Ltd. v.
Da1nodar
Valley
Corporation,
A.LR. 1967 S.C. 96; and Purshottam Urnedbhai & Co. v. M /r. Afanilal and
Sons, 1961 (I) S.C.R. 982; referred to.
Procedural law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct the course
of
substantive justice.
Provisions relating to pleadings in civil cases are meant to
give to each side intimation of the case of the other so that it rnay be met,
to enable Courts to determine \Vhat is really at issue between the parties, and to
prevent deviation from the course which litigation on particular causes must
take.
[615 B-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDJTION : Civil Appeal No. 1338 of 1977.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 20th
April, 1977 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision
No. 508 of 1975.
V. M. Tarkunde and 0. P. Verma or the Appellant.
M. 8. Lal for the Respondent.
(
...
. ...-
r
,. \
_,
-~
.,-<, .·
GANESH TRADING CO. V. MOJI RAM (Beg, C.J.)
615
The Judgment of the Court was ,delivered by
BEG, C.J. This appeal by special leave indicates how, despite the
settled practice of this Court not to interfere, as a general rule, with
orders of an interlocutory nature, such as one on an application for
the amendment of a plaint, this Court feels compelled, in order to
promote uniform standards and views on questions basic for a sound
.administration of justice, and, in order to prevent very obvious failures
-0f justice, to interfere even in such a matter in a very exceptional case
such as the one now before us seems to us to be.
·
Procedural la'\' is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct the
course of substantive justice.
Provisions relating to pleading in civil
,ca~es are meant to give to each side intimation of the case of the other
so that it may be met, to enable Courts to determine what is really
.at issue between parties, and to prevent deviatio'ns from the course
which litigation on particular cau&os of action must take.
Order 6, rule 2 Civil Procedure Code says :
"Every pleading shall contain, and contain only a state-
ment in a concise form of the material facts on which the
party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case
may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved,
and shall, when necessary, be divid•ed into paragraphs, num-
bered consecutively. Dates, sums and numb~rs shall be ex-
pressed in fExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.