CHANDER SINGH Vs. BHARAT BHUSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Orders shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 217/2001 and 218/2001. These emanate from a Suit for permanent injunction filed on 23.12.1992 by Late Shri Chander Singh. In paragraph 2 of the Plaint it has been averred by him that the land vests in the Trustees of Bharat Sewak Samaj. The Plaintiff, however, is not Bharat Sewak Samaj, as is clear either by looking at the cause title or the averments contained therein including the description of the Plaintiff at the end of the Plaint.

(2.) During the pendency of the Suit an application was filed by Late Shri Chander Singh, alleging that he had become the owner of the property by virtue of the execution of a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell etc. in his favour by Bharat Sewak Samaj. This fact was sought to be brought on record by way of an amendment under Order VI Rule 17 which had been rejected by the impugned Order dated 15.10.1999. The finding of the learned Civil Judge is that the nature of the Suit would be totally changed if the amendment is permitted, and that, in his view, the application has been filed to fill up the lacuna in the case as had been disclosed by the Defendant. The Defendant had questioned the maintainability of the Plaint on the grounds that the property was avowedly the Trust property and that the Suit had neither been brought in the name of the Trust nor had been subscribed to by all the Trustees. So far as the rejection of the application under Order VI Rule 17 is concerned I find no jurisdictional error since the Suit had not been filed by late Shri Chander Singh as its owner. Subsequent events which change the entire status and dealings between the parties ought not to be introduced in pending proceedings.

(3.) The contention of Mr. Shali is that it was not proper for the Court to summon the Chairman of Bharat Samaj Sewak to file the list of Trustees with their complete particulars and file an Affidavit showing their willingness to join as Plaintiffs in the present Suit. The argument has irrefutable merit. The Court must act under Order VII Rule 11 and if it is found that there is a fatal error in the Plaint itself the Suit must be rejected. This question must be decided by the learned Civil Judge himself. I refrain from making any observations thereon.