BIMAL KRISHNA BOSE Vs. ALANGA MEDICAL HALL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The hearing stems from an application filed by the petitioner, Rabindra Nath Roy praying for revision of the order being No. 156 dated 6.7.2002 passed by the Id. Judge, 2nd Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in T. S. 1109/1989.

(2.) The circumstances leading to the present revision are that the suit being T. S. 1109/1989 was instituted originally in the name of St. John Ambulance Clinic as plaintiff. On an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CP Code filed by the defendant/ respondent for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff St. John Ambulance Clinic being not a juristic person has no locus standi to institute the suit, the Id. Court below allowed the same vide Order No. 48 dated 10.05.1991 holding that the plaintiff not being a registered partnership firm or a private or public limited or a trust represented by sebait has no right to institute the suit. In appeal being F. A. T. 1951/1991 preferred by the plaintiff, this Court set aside the said older of the Id. Court below directing the plaintiff to file an application for amendment of the plaint for rectification of the defects and thereafter the Id. Court below to dispose of the application under, Order 7 Rule 11 CP Code filed by respondent No. 4. The Id. Court below allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CP Code filed by the plaintiff followed by rejection of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CP Code filed by defendant No. 4 holding that Dr. Bimal Krishna Basu, Honorary Secy, St. John Ambulance Clinic being incorporated as plaintiff by amendment, the original plaintiff St. John Ambulance Clinic could not be considered as plaintiff and so the question of registration of the plaintiff under the Societies Registration Act, does not arise. On the death of the said Dr. Bimal Krishna Basu on 16.05.2000, the present Secretary Sri Rabindra Nath Roy being his legal or official representative filed the application for substitution under Order 22 rules 3 & 4 CP Code within time which was rejected by the impugned order.

(3.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present revision.