RAJENDRA NATH TIKKU Vs. ROYAL CALCUTTA TURF CLUB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for amendment of the plaint and also for order for leave under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code to sue the proposed defendants as representing all the members of the Royal Calcutta Turf Club, and for consequential reliefs. The plaintiff instituted this suit on January 22, 1963 against the Royal Calcutta Turf Club inter alia, for a declaration that the notice dated January 28, 1957 alleged in the plaint is bad, void and of no legal effect, and for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to enter Calcutta Race Course of the Royal Calcutta Turf Club as well as other race courses at other places having reciprocal arrangements and for an injunction restraining the Club and/or its officials or agents or servants from interfering with the petitioner's right to enter the race course, and for a perpetual injunction restraining the Club and/or its officials or agents or servants from giving effect to the notice dated January 28, 1957. The petitioner's case in the plaint, in short is that he pledged two horses to a member of the Royal Calcutta Turf Club. The two horses were auctioned by the Club and the pledgee had to render an account and pay sums due to the petitioner. The pledgee failed to pay the petitioner's dues and a complaint was lodged under the Rules of the Club. An enquiry was ordered by the Stewards. On January 28, 1957 the Stewards informed the petitioner that he had been warned off as he was guilty of corrupt practices. The order appeared in the Racing Calendar dated February 14, 1957. The petitioners allegation is that he was never furnished with any charge or informed of any rule and the order dated January 28, 1957 that the petitioner committed a breach of the Racing Rules is impeached by the petitioner as illegal and void.

(2.) The suit is instituted against the Royal Calcutta Turf Club. In paragraph 20 of the petition the petitioner alleges that he was all along under the impression that the Royal Calcutta Turf Club is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act. In paragraph 21 it is alleged that on March 15, 1963 the petitioner's solicitor was served with a copy of Chamber summons dated March 15, 1963, and the petitioner has come to know from the affidavit in support of the said summons that the society is not registered under the Societies Registration Act.

(3.) In paragraph 22 of the petition the petitioner alleges that the misdescription of the defendant came to the petitioner's knowledge on or about May 8, 1963 for the first time. In paragraph 23 the petitioner states that he has been advised to rectify the misdescription. In paragraph 24 the petitioner states that the amendments are absolutely necessary for adjudication of the issues involved in the suit.