SERVANTS OF THE PEOPLE SOCIETY, LAJPAT BHAVAN LAJPAT NAGAR, NEW DELHI Vs. SHRI SUMER CHAND BHATT. RESIDENT OF LAJPAT BHAWAN, SECTOR 15-B, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the trial court dated 26th August, 1985, whereby an amendment of the plaint has been allowed.

(2.) THE Plaintiff filed the present Suit in December, 1982, for declaration challenging the resolution dated 16th March, 1980. The present application for amendment of the plaint was moved on 25th April, 1985. By virtue of the proposed amendment, the Plaintiff wanted to plead certain mala fides on the part of Sewak Ram and Satya Pal who are admittedly not parties to the suit. The suit was filed only against the Society known as the Servants of People Society, Lajpat Bhawan, New Delhi. In the plaint, certain mala -fides were alleged against other persons, but according to the Plaintiff due to inadvertence, the facts relating to the mala fides of the above -aailtwo persons could not be pleaded in the plaint and the is corporation thereof was very essential. This application was contested on behalf of the Defendant. However, the learned trial court took the view that an amendment could be allowed at any stage and if the Plaintiff it allowed to amend the suit, it could not be held to be time barred. Dissatisfied with the same, the Defendant has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that no such amendment could be allowed by the trial court. Admittedly, Sewak Ram and Satya Pal are not parties to the suit Ordinarily, no mala -fides can be alleged against a person who it not a party to the litigation, and in case any mala" fides are to be alleged then for that purpose he has to be impleaded as a party to the litigation. The mere fact that certain mala fides were alleged against other persons, was no ground to seek the amendment. In these circumstances, the application for amendment was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The resolution dated 16th March, 1980, removing the Plaintiff from the membership of the Society was passed by the Society itself, and, therefore, the question of alleging mala -fides against individual members as such did not arise.