K ANDALAMMA Vs. G LAKSHMA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :-

(2.) IMPLEADMENT of the respondents 5 and 7 to the writ petition, besides permission accorded to the writ petitioner by the writ Court to amend the relief clause in the writ petition is questioned by the respondent 3 in the writ petition (appellant herein) on the ground of denial of opportunity to oppose the amendment. The argument may not be out of the ignorance of the true legal position traceable to Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC), but it is certainly in contravention of mandate of the said rule which manifestly empowers the Court to exercise the power of impleadment even without a motion, apparently because unless the lis is barred by limitation or defeats an accrued right of a party, such party cannot claim to be an aggrieved person and there is no justification for such person to challenge the amendment of the relief and addition of a party. For another reason also, i.e., neither the impleadment nor the amendment of the pleadings divests a party to its right to assert and establish that the amendment plea is unfounded. Likewise nothing prevents it to raise an issue of misjoinder on account of impleadment sought and granted. Viewed thus, an order granting amendment of the pleadings and addition of a particular relief, do not fall within the expression of 'judgment' employed in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent as laid down by the Supreme Court in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben, AIR 1981 SC 1786 and Paragraphs 115 and 117 being relevant to the issue may be noticed :