CONFIDENT PROJECTS INDIA LIMITED Vs. EDWARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is in challenge of Ext.P7, order allowing amendment of plaint so as to correct the name of defendant in the suit and in the cause title and the body of plaint. Respondent/plaintiff sued "Confident Group, S.A Road Janatha, Vyttila" for fixation of boundary between plaint A and B schedule items and other reliefs. Summons was issued to the defendant in the said address. Appearance was made in the suit on behalf of "M/s. Confident Projects India Ltd., Bangalore". It filed Ext.P3, written statement raising contentions intended at non suiting the respondent. In the written statement it is contended that there is no such proprietorship or company by the name 'M/s. Confident Group'. In paragraph 6 of written statement petitioner (M/s. Confident Projects India Ltd.) contended that it is M/s. Confident Projects India Ltd., Bangalore which purchased the property involved in the suit from one Sajan Jose and not 'Confident Group' (named as defendant in the plaint). Similar contentions are raised in paragraphs 7 to 11 of Ext. P3, written statement as well. The written statement is verified by the General Manager on behalf of "M/s. Confident Projects India ltd., Bangalore". Respondent filed I.A No. 5314 of 2010 for amendment of plaint to correct the name of defendant from "Confident Group, S.A Road, Janatha Vyttila" to "M/s. Confident Project India Ltd, Confident Groups, Bangalore". That application was opposed by petitioner contending that attempt is to substitute the sole defendant with another which is not permissible. Learned Munsiff has rejected the contention and allowed I.A No.5314 of 2010 by Ext.P7, order which is under challenge.

(2.) LEARNED counsel contends that procedure adopted by the learned Munsiff is not correct. According to the learned counsel, notice of I.A.No.5314 of 2010 should have been given to M/s. Confident Projects India Ltd., Bangalore before allowing the amendment. It is also contending that it is not a case of correction of name of defendant but substituting the sole defendant with another without a cause of action. LEARNED counsel contended that the proper course available to the petitioner was to withdraw the suit with permission and file fresh suit against the proper defendant.