AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L.N. Mittal, J.—Defendant-M/s. Aspee Springs Limited has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filing this revision petition to challenge order dated 16.05.2011 Annexure P-5 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), SAS Nagar, Mohali thereby allowing application Annexure P-3 moved by respondent-plaintiff for amendment of plaint. Respondent-plaintiff has filed suit against defendant-petitioner vide plaint Annexure P-1 for recovery of money alleging that the plaintiff provided security services to the defendant at three locations i.e. at Dappar, at residence of Managing Director, A. P. S. Matharoo (at Chandigarh), at Baddi in the premises of the defendant-company and also at Baddi in the primises of M/s. M. N. C. Hers, since 1st January, 2008 till 22.06.2008 for which the defendant had not made payment to the plaintiff.
In the amendment application, the plaintiff alleged that it had served notices on four persons but inadvertently suit was filed against one person i.e. defendant-company only. Accordingly other three persons were also sought to be impleaded as party to the suit.
Defendant resisted the application by filing reply Annexure P-4.
Learned trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-5 allowed the application for amendment of plaint, subject to costs of Rs. 500/-. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed this revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file whereas none has appeared for the respondent in spite of last opportunity.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that the plaintiff has not moved application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC (in short, CPC) for addition of new defendants and, therefore, amendment of plaint could not be allowed. It was also contended that for the purpose of adding new defendants, question of limitation also comes into consideration and, therefore, proposed amendment could not be allowed. Reliance has been placed on judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Alkapuri Co-operative Housing Society Ltd versus Jayantibhai Naginbhai (deceased) Thr. Lrs., 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 427.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. In amendment application, the plaintiff has, of course, mentioned Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. However, practically, for all intents and purposes, the application is for addition of new defendants and, therefore, the application should have been filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. However, mere mentioning of wrong provision of law is not sufficient to dismiss the application.
As regards merits of the application, three new persons sought to be added as defendants No. 2 to 4 are described in the amendment application as under:
M/s. MNC Hers, 71 HPSIDC, Industrial Aria, Baddi, District Solan (H.P.).
M/s. Aspee Springs Limited, Dappar, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Mohali.
Shri A.P.S. Matharoo, Managing Director, M/s. Aspee Springs Limited, Kothi No. 72, Sector 8-A, U.T. Chandigarh.
It is thus manifest that the person mentioned at serial No. 2 in the application is none else but the original defendant-petitioner-company itself although its unit at Dappar, District Mohali whereas the defendant-company''s unit which has been mentioned in the original plaint is located at Industrial Area, Baddi (Himachal Pardesh). However the company remains the same. The company is single juristic entity and even if it is running units at two places, the company would remain the same. Consequently there would be no difference if the same company at different address is also impleaded as party to the suit.
Person mentioned at serial No. 3 Mr. A. P.S. Matharoo is none else but Managing Director of the defendant-company. Even in the original plaint, the defendant company has been sued through its Managing Director, Mr. A.P.S. Matharoo. Consequently addition of Mr. A.P.S. Matharoo by his name would also not make any difference.
The dispute remains regarding the person mentioned at serial No. 1 in the application. It appears to be a different company from the defendant. However, amendment application is dated 15.10.2010. Amount sought to be recovered is for services rendered since 01.01.2008 and therefore, the suit qua the said newly added defendant was also within limitation when amendment application was filed. In these circumstances, judgment in the case of Alkapuri Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (supra) does not help the petitioner in any manner.
It may be added that averments in the original plaint have already been made not only regarding the defendant-petitioner but also regarding the persons sought to be added by amendment of plaint. Thus only title of the plaint is sought to be amended by adding the aforesaid three persons as defendants No. 2 to 4. In these circumstances, proposed amendment of plaint/addition of parties has been rightly allowed on payment of costs. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the trial Court so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed being meritless.