NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE Vs. RAM SARAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision arises out of an order made by a subordinate Judge dismissing the petitioners' application for amendment of the written statement filed by them. A similar point also arises in three other civil revisions viz. C.R. No. 57 of 1968, C.R. No. 58 of 1968 and C. R. No. 59 of 1968. New Delhi Municipal Committee is the common petitioners in all the four petitions while petitioner No. 2 in each case is a sub-inspector employed in the department of enforcement or health by the said Committee. The respondent in all the four cases is the same and so is the question raised therein. This order will therefore dispose of all the four petitions.

(2.) The common question is that the plea of want of notice under Section 49 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 was not raised on behalf of the petitioners in the original written statement filed on their behalf but it was raised after a lapse of about 15 months in the amended written statement for which leave of the court was sought under Order 6 rule 17 Civil Procedure Code.

(3.) The learned subordinate Judge relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Dhian Singh Sobha Singh and another v. Union of India ( AIR 1958 SC 274)(1) and a decision of Nagpur High Court in Secretary of State v. Sheoramijee Hanumantrao (AIR 1952 Nag. 213) (2) dismissed the application holding that the objection must be deemed to have been waived. Learned Judge also held that if the amendment was allowed after a lapse of 15 months and on the strength of that objection the suit was held to be non-maintainable for want of a notice, then the plaintiff respondent would be seriously prejudiced because in that case of a fresh suit filed by him after service of notice would be barred by time.