AMIR ALI Vs. AHMED PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC against the order of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. dn.) Gulbarga in Misc. No. 447/ 2000. The petitioner is the successful candidate in Taluk Panchayath election, elected from Kadadoor constituency of Chittapur Taluk panchayath. The first respondent herein is the unsuccessful candidate at the election, filed an election petition challenging the election of the petitioner herein. During the pendency of the proceedings, the first respondent made an application in I. A. No. III under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to amend the cause title in describing the second respondent herein as the Returning Officer, No. 5 kadadoor Taluk Panchayath, Chittapur. In the original pleadings, the second respondent is described as Returning Officer-cum-Tahsildar taluk Panchayath, Chittapur. It is noticed that the second respondent who is the first respondent in the original petition is not properly described, so also, the relevant averments in the petition did not describe properly the second respondent. Hence an application was made to carry out the amendment. The Trial Court after hearing the parties, allowed the amendment holding that the amendment does not touch the root of the matter and seeks to properly describe the respondent who is the returning officer of the constituency. Being aggrieved, the present revision petition is filed.

(2.) THE contesting respondent No. 1 although served has remained absent. The second respondent is represented by the State. The third respondent is another defeated candidate and is not represented *crp No. 1357/2002 dated 9th September 2002 although served.

(3.) A short and an interesting question would arise in these proceedings. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, when a party is not properly described or mis-described, it is permissible to describe the party in a proper manner and such an attempt does not amount to impleading a party under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. Since the necessary person is already made a party but, his descriptions are wrongly given or there is a mis-description, in such situations, the amendment to clarify the correct particulars of the party is not held to be impleading of a party at a later stage under Order 1 Rule 10 cpc. However, when the lapse committed does not amount to misdescription. Necessarily an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has to be made to implead the party and if allowed, such impleading takes place from the date of issuance of summons and is not considered to be a party on records as on the date of institution. This is the general proposition of law envisaged under Code of Civil procedure relating to the non-description of the parties and impleading of parties under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. In the present case, the first respondent described the Returning Officer of Kadadoor constituency as the Returning Officer-cum-Tahsildar of Chittapur Taluk panchayath. Having realized that the description of Returning Officer is not properly given, made an application for amendment.