SUBHASH BHUSHAN SHARMA Vs. FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.K. Shukla, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Although the cause list has been revised none appears on behalf of the Respondents.

(2.) The Petitioner, who was Respondent in the appeal before the first appellate court was the Plaintiff in the suit is aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.1995 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) passed by the First Additional District Judge, Moradabad, in Misc. Case No. 45 of 1992 whereby an amendment application Paper No. 13A made by the Appellant seeking amendment in application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, Paper No. 3C has been considered by the court below and the impugned order has been passed. The order dated 2.11.1995 appears to be a formal order of the impugned order dated 27.10.1995 which is also sought to be set aside in these proceedings.

(3.) Sri Shukla has submitted that when a party in a proceedings dies the heirs and legal representatives are to be substituted and it cannot be done by way of moving the amendment application particularly because under the provision of Order VI, Rule 17, Code of Code of Civil Procedure amendment is permissible only in the pleadings and not in the array of parties, He submits that by the impugned order such amendment application has been partly allowed illegally permitting amendment in the array of parties described in the application under Section 5, limitation Act.