BADRILAL Vs. SHANTILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for revision by the plaintiff against the order of the lower appellate Court, dated 21 -3 -1959, by which the suit has been dismissed on a preliminary point.

(2.) THE plaintiff had filed the present suit naming "Seth Nihalchand Champalal "as defendant. It was found that Seth Nihalchand Champalal was dead before the suit was filed. The summons was served on Shantilal, who is the son of Seth Nihalchand. He objected to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that it was instituted against a dead defendant and the plaintiff then applied for amendment of the plaint under Order 30, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, stating that it was a firm name and Shantilal was dealing in that name The amendment was allowed. Later, Shantilal again objected to the plaint as amended and the trial Court dismissed the suit as it was not validly instituted. The lower appellate Court has confirmed the dismissal of the suit.

(3.) THE plaint, however, is not material to the present case. The application filed by the plaintiff for amendment was not under Order 1, rule 10, but under order 30, rule 10, which is as follow: -