CLARAMMA Vs. THREESA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. The suit is for an injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing or otherwise interfering with the B schedule property. That suit was decreed ex parte and subsequently the ex parte decree was set aside. In the written statement it was contended that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiff filed I.A. No. 574 of 1984 for impleading additional defendants 3 and 4, That application was allowed after hearing the parties. However it would appear that the office insisted that the plaintiff should carry out the amendment in the original plaint. Since the plaintiff did not carry out the amendment, the application for impleading was dismissed. Subsequently he filed I. A. No. 2337 of 1984 to review that order and it was also dismissed. This C.R.P. is filed against the abovesaid order.

(2.) The impleading petition is filed under O.1 R.10 C.P.C. and it cannot be treated as a petition for amendment under O.6 R.17 C.P.C. If an amendment of the pleadings under O.6 R.17 is allowed by a court, the party is bound to carry out the amendment under R.18 of that Order. But it is specifically provided in R.21(2) of the Civil Rules of Practice that where any person is made a party to a suit, appeal or proceeding the name of such person and other details shall be entered in the plaint, appeal memorandum or proceeding in red ink over the signature of the Chief Ministerial Officer and also in the institution register. The proceedings under which such addition is made shall also be entered therein. Further directions as to how the numbering of the parties is to be made is also provided for in R.21(2). Therefore it is clear that where additional parties are impleaded, it is the duty of the office to carry out such amendment in the pleadings. Only amendment of the pleadings as contemplated under O.6 R.17 C.P.C. need be carried out by the party.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner brought to my notice the ruling reported in H. H. Darbar Alabhai Vajsurbhoi v. Bhura Bhaya (AIR 1937 Bom. 401) wherein it is held as follows at page 406