BIKRAM SINGH Vs. G D JHINGAN SECRETARY DELHI AND EAST PANJAB CIRCLE TELEGRAPH CO OPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs' revision directed against the order of a learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dated 9/8/1968 disallowing in part the amendment sought in the plaint.

(2.) In April, 1968, the suit out of which this revision arises was instituted by three plaintiffs against four defendants claiming a perpetual injunction to the effect that the defendants be restrained from "interfering with the plaintiff working as President of Delhi and East Punjab Circle Telegraph Co-operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., New Delhi, and from holding the election of the general body for election of the Committee perpetually." It appears that the plaintiffs had original thought of including in this plaint, a paragraph numbered as paragraph 8 which reads thus:

(3.) This paragraph somehow remained on the copy which was sent to the defendants along with the summons to file with the statement in answer to the plaint. Of course, this paragraph was struck out with ink. In the plaint, as put into Court, however, this paragraph did not find place. The suit was contested and the pleadings gave rise to some preliminary issues. On those preliminary issues, evidence was also recorded and the case was fixed for arguments on those issues for 20-7-1968. On 16-7-1968, an application under Order 6, Rule 17, read with section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment of the plaint was presented by the plaintiff. The typed copy, however, bears the date "15/4/1968, but no point has been sought to be made at the bar on this .account. This amendment was resisted by the defendants and the trial Court, by means of the impugned order, disallowed addition of paragraphs 8 and 9 in the plaint. It is unnecessary to point out that paragraph I sought to be added by the application for amendment was allowed by the trial Court. It is against this refusal of the trial Court to allow paragraphs Nos. 8 and 9 to be added that this revision is directed. According to the Court below, since the plaintiffs were aware of the alleged order dated 5/4/1968, at the time of presenting the unamended plaint and reference to it was intentionally kept out of the same, it would be improper to permit it to be included now and it would also be introducing a new case by permitting the amended claim to be based on the order dated 5/4/1968. The trial Court relied for its view on a Privy Council decision in Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung, and on an English decision in Tildeslay, V. Harper