GORAYA COMMISSION Vs. SUKHRAJ AGRO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dtd. 25/7/2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala, whereby the application dtd. 4/7/2025 filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Sec. 151 CPC was dismissed.

(2.) The facts as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff/petitioner instituted a suit for recovery against M/s Sukhraj Agro, Shop No. 61, New Green Market, Batala, through its authorised signatory, Shri Rajinder Singh. In the plaint it was alleged that the defendant firm is a concern in which Rajinder Singh was managing and controlling the affairs. The written statement, however, specifically averred that the son of Rajinder Singh, namely Sukhraj Singh, is the sole proprietor of M/s Sukhraj Agro and that Rajinder Singh was not the proprietor of that firm though he admittedly runs M/s Rajinder Trading Company. Issues were framed and the matter proceeded to trial. An application for framing of an additional issue on the question of non-joinder of necessary parties was filed and dismissed.

(3.) Thereafter an application dtd. 24/2/2025 under Order I Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed. That application was recorded as having been withdrawn on 4/7/2025, the record bearing a statement by counsel for the plaintiff that the application suffered from a technical defect. The earlier order records the withdrawal but does not contain any express order either granting or refusing liberty to file a fresh application. On the same date i.e. on 4/7/2025 a fresh application was filed by the plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule 17 and Sec. 151 CPC seeking to amend the plaint by specifically adding the name of Sukhraj Singh as defendant No.2 and by stating that "defendant No.1 is a sole proprietorship concern and defendant No.2 is the sole proprietor of defendant No.1." The learned trial court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the fresh application vide order dtd. 25/7/2025. The reasons recorded by the trial court are that an earlier similar application had been filed and withdrawn and no express liberty to file a fresh application was shown on record. The plaintiff had already led its evidence on the same array of parties and that allowing the amendment at the stage of defendant's evidence would complicate the proceedings, cause multiplicity of applications, possibly necessitate further affidavits and leading of fresh evidence and would therefore prejudice the defendant. Further, the trial court observed that the plaintiff had not shown due diligence.