INDERCHAND MULCHAND BANWAT Vs. MANOJ PREMCHAND SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the applicant instituted suit against the respondent No. 1 on 22-7-1997 for recovery of amount towards the value of goods sold to the respondent No. 1 under bona fide belief that he was proprietor and owner of shop named Om Medical Stores. The suit is for recovery of Rs. 9768. 65.

(3.) THE respondent No. 1 filed written statement and took a stand that he is not the owner but was working in the said shop as servant and as such, the suit filed against him was incompetent. In the written statement, the name of the owner was not disclosed. The written statement was filed on 11-11-1997. Thereafter the applicant made enquiries from the Registrar and other sources and only on 29-12-1998 became aware about the name of the owner who was none else but the brother of the respondent No. 1. In the circumstances, an application was filed before the trial Court being Exhibit 24 in the pending suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 104/1997, praying that the applicant be permitted to implead respondents No. 2 and 3 as parties defendants in the said suit. The said application was resisted by the respondents. 3. The trial Court, by the impugned order dated 20-12-1999 was pleased to reject the said application. Although the trial Court has referred to various contentions raised on behalf of the respondents, however, has rejected the application on the sole ground that if the amendment was allowed, that would result into permitting the applicant to institute time barred claim against the respondents Nos. 2 and 3. It is not in dispute that this is the only reason assigned by the trial Court in para 8 of the impugned order.