AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arun Kumar Goel, Judge.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Brief facts, giving rise to this revision petition, are that a suit came to be filed on behalf of respondent no.
1 Ved Mandir (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff) against the petitioner as well as respondent no.2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants)
for eviction, as well as for recovery of money etc. this suit was initially filed in the name of the plaintiff through its Secretary. It is not in dispute that
plaintiff is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. That being so, suit by or against the society can either be instituted under
Section 6A or as determined by the Rules of the Society.
After written statement had been filed by the defendants, a specific objection was raised to the effect that suit as per bylaws of the society can
only be filed through its president and not by Secretary, as was originally instituted. Faced with this situation, as well as in view of the provisions
contained in its constitution, plaintiff filed an application under order 1 Rule 10 code of Civil Procedure for substitution of the president in place of
the Secretary, which application was allowed by the trial court, hence this revision at the instance of one of the defendants.
Two contentions have been urged by Shri Zutshi in support of this revision petition, that there is no bona fide mistake on the basis of which
plaintiff could maintain the present application and, secondly, there was no consent of the person, i.e. the President who was to sue on behalf of the
plaintiff. Both these contentions have been supported by Shri Wazir, learned counsel appearing for the other defendant in the suit.
Parties are not at variance that the case is still in its initial stage, except for filing writtenstatement, as well as some Misc. application, no
substantive proceedings have been taken so far, so much so issues have also not been framed todate.
In the present case, it cannot be controverted that the plaintiff is a person under legal disability, being a Mandir. That being so, for acts of
omission and even for negligence of the persons responsible to manage its affairs, a litigant i.e. the plaintiff in the present case, should not be made
to suffer. Howsoever negligent or careless may' have been the first omission and howsoever late the proposed amendment it should be allowed if it
can be made without injustice to the other side. There is no injustice if the other side can be compensated by costs. Besides this, another
consideration that has to be borne in mind while considering the application for amendment is that as far as possible, multiplicity of suits should also
be avoided. If any authority on this question is to be made, a reference may be made to the case of Maruti and others Vs. Ranganath, AIR 1955
Hyderabad, Page 1.
Above all, rules of the procedure are handmade for advancing the cause of justice and not thwarting the same. During the course of this revision
petition, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff urged that there is no jurisdictional' error in this case and further the trial court has acted in
accordance with law. Besides this, after having accepted the costs imposed by the trial court, while allowing the amendment sought for by his client
by means of impugned order, defendants are precluded from maintaining this revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitionerdefendant no. 1, Shri Zutshi, Seriously contested the claim of having accepted the costs.
Be that as it may, there is no merit in this revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Costs on the parties.