LAXMIKUMAR SRINIVAS DAS Vs. KRISHNARAM BALDEV BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO revisions, one by Laxmi Kumar and another by his minor son Krishna Kumar been filed in this Court against an order 11 -8 -52 passed by the Additional District ge,(sic) Gwalior, in Civil Criminal Suit No. 4 of (sic) valued at Rs. 5,54,697/ -. This judgment will of both the revisions. The suit as (sic) framed was filed against them by Krishna (sic) Baldev Bank, Lashkar, through its Mana - (sic) Mr. Jal Bharucha, on the basis of three (sic) deeds dated 22 -3 -48, 13 -4 -48 and 13 -4 -(sic) to have been executed by Laxmi in favour of the Bank. The Defendants (sic) objected to the suit filed by the Bank an (sic) was made by Mr. Jal Bharucha and er(sic) by His Highness Maharaja Jiwaji, Rao for amendment of the plaint. It trans - I' (sic) that the said Bank is neither a juristic (sic) nor a firm as defined in Order 30, Rule (sic) the Code of Civil Procedure, but is the (sic) property of His Highness Maharaja (sic) and during the days when the Ruler of (sic) State had sovereign rights, a notifica (sic) had been published in the Gwalior Govern Gazette dated 19th July 1924 authorising said Bank to sue and be sued in its own (sic)

(2.) THE learned Additional District Judge has allowed the amendment on payment of Rs. 500/ - as costs to the Defendants Petitioner and the Plaintiff's name now, stands as "Lt. General His Highness Maharaja Jeewaji Rao Madhava Rao Scindia, sole proprietor of, and carrying on business under the name and style of, Krishna Ram Baldev Bank, Jayaji Chowk, Lashkar. "Through some inadvertence, it appears that the words" through Mr. Jal S. Bharucha Manager" still remain on the plaint and ought now to be deleted.

(3.) IN - Hughes v. Pump House Hotel Co. Ltd. (No. 2) (1902) 2 KB 485(C) the Court of Appeal clearly held that where an action has, through a bona fide mistake, been commenced in the name of the wrong person as Plaintiff, the fact that the original Plaintiff has no cause of action does not take away the jurisdiction of the Court to order the substitution of another person as Plaintiff. Their Lordships of the Judicial Committee followed this ruling in - Monghibai v. Cooverji Umersey : AIR 1939 PC 170 (D). In fact, the trial Court is vested with wide discretion under Order 1, Rule 10 and when the Court has exercised this discretion to prevent the suit being defeated upon a purely technical ground, this Court will not interfere, in its revisional jurisdiction, with the orders passed allowing the amendment.