LexJAI JAI RAM MANOHAR LAL versus NATIONAL BUILDING MATERIAL SUPPLY, GURGAON
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
JAi JAi RAM MANOHAR LAL
v.
NATIONAL BUILDING MATERIAL SUPPLY, GURGAON
March 17, I 969
[J. C. SHAH AND A . .N. GROVER, JJ.]
Praclice and Procedure--·Amendn1ent vf plaint--Should 1101 be refused
on technical grounds-Amended plaint when deemed to be
filed-Effect
on limitation-Costs when parry persists in plea without 1neri1.
Manoharlal s/ o J ai J ai Ram commenced an action in the Court of the
Subordinate Judge· for value of timber supplied to the defendant. The
A
B
action was instituted in the name of •Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lai' which was
C
the ~
in which the business was carried on. The plaintiff signed and
verified the plaint as 'Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal. by the pen of Manohar Lal.'
Later be applied to the Coun for leave to amend the plaint. In the appli-
cation he averred that the busines.o;
carried on under the name
Jai Jai
Ram Manohar Lal was a joint Hindu family business and the name was
not an assumed or fictitious one as it contained bis name and that of his
father. On these averments he prayed that he be allowed to descrill< him-
self in the cause title as 'Manohar Lal proprietor of Jai Jai Ram ttianohar
D
Lal and in paragraph 1 to state that he carried on the business in timber
in the name of 'Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal'. °lbe application was allowed
by the trial Judge. The defendant then filed a supplementary written state·
ment raising two additional contentions : (I) that the plaintiff was not the
sole owner of the business and that his other brothers were also the owners
of the business; and (2) that the amendment took effect from the date
on which it was made and if so. the suit was barred by limitation. The
trial court rejecting theoe contentions decreed the suit.
The High Court
E
in appeal took the view that the action having been instituted in the name
of a 'non-existing penon', and Maoohar Lal having failed to aver in the
application for amendment that the action was instituted in the name of
1Jai Jai Ram Manobar Lal' on. account of a bona fide mistake or omission,
the Subordinate Judge was incompetent to grant leave to amend the plaint.
The High Coun further held that the amendment allowed by the trial Coun
toot eftect only from the date of amendment, and the action was barred
F
by limitation. Against the judgment of the High Coun the plaintiff, by
special leave, appealed to this Coun.
HELD : (i) The order passed by the High Coun could not be sustained.
Rule.. of procedure are intended tn be a handmaid to the administration
of justice. A party cannot be refused relief merely because of same mis-
take, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure.
!be <;:ourt always gives leave t~ amend the pleading of a party, unless it
G
IS sallsfle<I that the p~ applytog was acting ma/a {Uk or that by bis
blunder he bad caused injury to his opponent which may not be com-
pensated for by an order of cost..
However negligent or careless 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. [25 C-E!
Purshottam Um•dbhai de Co. v. Mis. Manila/ and Sons 11961] I S.C.R.
H
982, explained and applied.
'
Amulakchand M<waram & Ors. v. Babula/ Kana/al Tallwa/a, 35 Bom.
L.R.. Sfl'), applied.
•
,,
•
•
A
B
c
D
MANOHAR LAL V. N. B. M. SUPPLY (Shah, J.)
23
In the present case the plaintiff was carrying on business as commission
agent in the name of 'Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal'. The plaintiff was com-
petent to sue in his own name as manager of the Hindu undivided family
to which the business belonged; he claimed to have filed the suit on behalf
of the family in the business name. The observations made by the High
Court that the application for amendment of the plaint could not be granted,
because there was no averment therein that the misdescription \Vas on
account of a bona fide mistake, and on that account the suit must fail,
could not be accepted.
There is no rule that unless in an application for
amendment of the plaint it is expressly averred that the error, omission or
misdescription is due to a bona fide mistake. the court has no power to grant
leave to amend the plaint. The power to grant amendment of the pleadings
is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any such
narrow or technical limitations. [27 B-D]
(ii) Since the name in which the action was instituted was merely a
misdescription of the oriExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.