MOOPPAN COMPLEX MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION Vs. RAVEENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art.227 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the Trial Court dated 23rd July, 2003 disallowing an application of the petitioner to amend the plaint. Mooppan Complex Merchants Association along with some others instituted the suit out of which, the present petition has arisen. The General Secretary of the Association was the second plaintiff. It is common case of the parties that the Association was not registered at the time when the suit was instituted. However, during the pendency of the suit, the Association obtained registration under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. This registration was obtained on 9.12.2002. It was only on 10.7.2003 that the petitioners chose to file the application under O.6, R.17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the plaint. The Trial Court disallowed the application observing that the amendment, if allowed, will relate back to the date on which the suit was instituted and that may create an absurd situation. Hence, this petition.

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution. Art.227 enables the High Court to have superintendence over the subordinate courts and tribunals with a view to keep them within the bounds of their jurisdiction. Obviously, the scope of interference in such a petition is very limited. It is only when a Court or tribunal has acted beyond the jurisdiction that the Court normally interferes. In the instant case, the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application for amendment cannot be said to be one without jurisdiction. If the petitioners feel that the order is erroneous, it will be open to them to challenge the same in appeal, if and when it is filed against the final decree passed by the Trial Court. Moreover, the purpose of amending O.6, R.17 of the Code of Civil Procedure by Act 46 of 1999 and by Act 22 of 2002 was to prevent the parties to the suit from challenging ail the interlocutory orders at the interlocutory orders at the intermediary stage of the proceedings, particularly, when the trial had closed.