A.V. SUBRAMANIAM, BY PARTNER A.V. SUBRAMANIA MUDALIAR Vs. RAMACHANDRA BEHARILAL, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR BEHARILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the petitioner in this revision. He filed an application J.A. No. 1958 of 1951 under Order 6, Rule 17 and Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, for the amendment of the cause title in the plaint and the judgment and decree in respect of O.S. No. 417 of 1948 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Erode which he brought for the recovery of Rs. 2861 -2 -0 and in which he obtained a decree. But the application has been dismissed and the revision is against this order.

(2.) THE facts necessary to understand the points lie in a very brief compass. The plaintiff is a firm carrying on business under the name and style of A.V. Subramaniam. This firm had certain transactions in turmeric with a person carrying on business under the name and style of "Ramachandra Behari Lal" at Aligarh. There were notices which preceded the suit and as the person trading in the name of Ramachandra Behari Lal did not comply with the demands of the plaintiff, O.S. No. 417 of 1948 was filed on 27th July, 1948, against "Ramachandra Behari Lal" who was described in the plaint as "Ramachandra Behari Lal, father's name not known, carrying on business at Aligarh". Several notices were taken out through Court to the defendant and all of them were returned unserved with the endorsement that there was no person of that name at Aligarh. Finally the learned District Munsif directed fresh service and notice by registered post by an order, dated 15th November, 1948. Such a notice was despatched by the plaintiff and evidently it was returned with the endorsement "refused". I am saying "evidently" advisedly because though the entire records of the suit in the Court of the District Munsif have been called for, the refused registered cover is not among them. But there is a note in the judge's notes paper reading thus : "Registered post to the defendant Refused". After this the case came on for disposal on 16th February, 1949 and on that date the note made by the District Munsif runs thus:

(3.) THE Judgment of the learned District Munsif is not very helpful in construing either the facts or the legal propositions involved in this application for amendment Learned Counsel for the respondent frankly conceded that he could not support the reasoning in this judgment but would seek to support the order by arguments which he would address to this Court. As the defendant was declared ex parte and as I was impressed with the fact that if really the defendant had not been served by reason of any mistake on the part of the plaintiff in the description of the defendant in the cause title, the latter should not suffer by having a decree passed against him without being heard and without an opportunity of contesting it on merits. I had the papers called for from the District Munsif 's Court of Erode for the purpose of judging the justness of this grievance. I have set out earlier the result of these records. They clearly show that the present defendant had full knowledge of the institution of the suit and the date of its hearing by reason of the lawyer's notice, Exhibit A -2 and that under orders of Court notice of summons had been forwarded to him by registered post which he had refused and it was in these circumstances that he was declared ex parte and a decree passed against him. I do not, therefore, consider that there is any justification for any grievance or complaint that any inaccuracy in the description of the defendant had prejudiced him to any extent.