MUTHUKRISHNA PILLAI Vs. MARAJAM AIYENGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the pleaders on both sides relating to this matter, and though the question discussed before us is not entirely free from difficulties, on the whole, we are inclined to take the view of the law applicable to the case, which found favour with Mr. Justice Hannay. WE think the question whether the amendment of the plaint as asked for amounts, in law, to the substitution of a new plaintiff, is really covered by the Privy Council decision in Peary Mohun Mukerjee v. Narendranath Muherjee (1909) I.L.R. 37 C. 229 : 20 M.L.J. 171. In that case there was a Debutter estate which does not appear to have been properly represented. After the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for the suit, an enquiry was ordered in order to determine who should be appointed as the shebait so that he may represent the estate; one of the defendants was found to be so entitled, and was impleaded as shebait. It was held by the Calcutta High Court and by their Lordships of the Privy Council that this did not amount to adding a new defendant.

(2.) HERE, the plaintiff, in the original plaint, did not say that he was suing on behalf of the Reliance Company; and, on objection being taken by the defendant, he stated that he was entirely agreeable that the decrees should be in favour of the company, and that the plaint be amended so that the suit might proceed as being instituted on behalf of the company. We think this is not a case of adding a new plaintiff, for the plaintiff was already on the record, and all he did not make clear in the original plaint was the capacity in which he instituted the suit. We dismiss the appeal with costs.