AUDIO ADVERTISING AGENCY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendants on the allegations that it was engaged by defendants 2 and 3 of which defendants 4 to 7 are stated to be directors/partners, for carrying out their advertising campaign with Doordarshan by telecasting its advertisement films for its products. The plaintiff is alleged to have booked space and time for telecast of the advertising films of defendant No.2 with defendant No.1 and got the telecast of various advertising films of the products of the said defendant Defendant No. 1 raised its bills upon the plaintiff who in turn called upon defendants 2 to 7 to make payment of the said bills. The defendants 2-7 made default and did not clear the payment due to the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. On account of the defendants 2 to 7 not making payment, the plaintiff also defaulted in making payment of the said bills to defendant No. 1 and the said defendant, therefore, cancelled the accredition of the plaintiff by its telegram dated September 1, 1990. It was on these allegations that the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 28,20,579.75 paise against defendants 2 to 7. Defendant No. 1 has been impleaded as a party, as according to the plaintiff, it was a necessary party and a decree was claimed either in favour of the plaintiff or defendant No. 1. Allegations against defendant No.8 are that the said defendant had agreed to advance loan to defendants 2 to 7 to meet the demand of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and on the plaintiff's coming to know of the sanction of such loan, it requested defendant No.8 not to make payment to defendants 2 to 7. As the said defendant did not pay any heed to the alleged request of the plaintiff, directions are sought against defendant No.8 as may be deemed fit and proper for giving effective relief absolving the plaintiff in respect of the amount in suit.

(2.) The present application has been filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the plaint. It is stated that as regards defendant No.8, averments have been made in the plaint that the said defendant was acting in connivance and collusion with defendant No.2 and had been advancing secured loans to the said defendant thereby making it impossible for the plaintiff to recover dues of defendant No. 1 from defendants 2 to 7 and recently it had come to the knowledge of the plaintiff that defendant No.8 had advanced loan to defendant No.2 for the specific purpose of meeting the liability of various creditors including the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. The plaintiff, therefore, seeks an amendment in the plaint so as to seek a declaration against defendant No.8 to the effect that the said defendant will not be entitled to enforce their securities as against defendants 2 to 7 to the extent of the suit amount with interest. Relief is also being claimed against defendant No 1 to the effect that a decree for declaration has been claimed by way of amendment declaring that plaintiff w as an agent of defendant No. 1 and had no personal liability to defendant No. 1 in any manner for the outstanding dues of defendants 2 to 7. In support of his contention that the amendments are very material and necessary for deciding the matter in controversy between the parties, learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the judgments reported as Vineet Kumar Vs. Mangal Sam Wadhera, AIR 1985 SC 817; Suraj Prakash Bhasin Vs. SmLRaj Rani Bhasin and Others, AIR 1981 SC 484; Nirmala Devi Vs. Gopal Krishan, etc., 1982 RLR 207 and Mangal Dass Sant Ram Gauba Vs. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1973 Delhi 96.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter in controversy between the parties in the present suit, I feel that the amendment sought is not relevant for purposes of deciding the matter in controversy between the parties in the present suit. The controversy in the present suit is only to the effect as to whether defendants 2 to 7 are liable to make payment of the amount which is being claimed by defendant No. 1 from the plaintiff on account of the plaintiff having booked space and time for telecasting the advertisement films of defendant Nos.2 to 7. No relief can be claimed against defendant No. 1 unless a notice under Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code has been given tome said defendant stating the cause of action and the relief which is being claimed against the Government. Though, a notice dated April 20, 1991 has been given by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1, however, in the said notice what has been stated is that defendant No. 1 should join the plaintiff as co-plaintiff in the suit and in case no such consent was given by defendant No. 1 to join as co-plaintiff, the plaintiff will have to file a suit as per the draft plaint enclosed therewith. The draft plaint is the same as the plaint filed in the suit and no relief has been chimed against defendant No. 1 therein. On the other hand, what has been stated is that a decree be passed either in favour of the plaintiff or in favour of defendant No. 1 against defendants 2 to 7. By the proposed amendment, the plaintiff is seeking a decree against the Union of India on the allegations which were not made earlier in the plaint. In my opinion, therefore, without service of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the plaintiff will not be entitled to amend the plaint in the manner suggested in the application so as to seek the relief against the said defendant.