MURALEEDHARAN Vs. P V VALSAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is preferred by defendant No.1 in O.S.No.284 of 2001 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Palakkad in challenge of Ext.P10, order allowing amendment of plaint as sought for in Ext.P8, application. According to the learned counsel by the amendment an entirely new legal entity than the one stated in the plaint is brought in as plaintiff in the suit which is not permissible. It is also argued by learned counsel that even if the application is treated as one under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") such amendment should be implead the real person but in this case there is no evidence to show that impleaded person is the real plaintiff. It is also stated that impleaded person does not have any cause of action against petitioner/defendant No.1 even as per averment in plaint, not to say about any document in support of that contention produced by respondent No.1/plaintiff. In the circumstance amendment ought not have been allowed. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contends that there is no substantial amendment brought into the plaint but what is sought for by the amendment is only to correct a misdescription of plaintiff in the cause title of plaint which the court below has rightly allowed and in the light of the decision of this court in A.V Kelankutty Vs. Nayadi and Another (1988(2) KLT 819) the order does not call for interference. Learned counsel for respondent/defendant No.2 points out that in the writ petition description of respondent No.2 is not correct in that it is a company under liquidation under the management of the official receiver which fact is not mentioned in the writ petition.

(2.) TO understand the argument advanced by learned counsel for petitioner it is necessary to refer to the facts of this case. Respondent No.1 sued for recovery of money allegedly due from petitioner as per a contract for supply of products allegedly distributed by petitioner. In the plaint, plaintiff is stated as "P.V Valsappan Managing Partner Remya Agencies East Fort Junction, Thrissur"

(3.) IT is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner had no transaction with M/s. Remya Agencies, Palakkad and that its transactions were with M/s. Remya Agencies, Thrissur. Learned counsel states that even as per the plaint averments basis for plaint claim is an agreement dated 24- 07-1998 which is executed between petitioner and M/s. Remya Agencies, Thrissur and it is on the basis of that agreement that there was business transactions between petitioner and plaintiff. Learned counsel refers to another agreement dated 10-08-2008 executed between M/s. Remya Agencies, Palakkad and petitioner for distribution of products in Thrissur which is not covered by the agreement dated 24-07-1998. Whether the newly substituted plaintiff is entitled to succeed in the plaint or has a cause of action against petitioner are not matters required to be gone into this proceeding. IT is open to the petitioner to file additional written statement in the way it is argued or in any other manner as provided under law and resist claim of substituted plaintiff.