GOPI NATH VARMA Vs. MANAUR HUSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule is misconceived. The action was for hire of a taxi. The plaintiff in the first place brought his action against defendants 1 and 2. At a later stage, whilst the action was pending, he joined defendant 3, against whom judgment had been pronounced, but omitted to amend his plaint in conformity with the evidence which he ultimately gave against defendant 3. For reasons best known to himself defendant 3 failed to defend the suit and in his absence the Judge gave judgment against him without formally calling upon the plaintiff to amend his plaint. The fact that there was no formal amendment is the only possible point that could be made against the decision of the Court below. But as it was merely a formality in the circumstances it was immaterial although it ought to be noted by Judges who try these cases that if a judgment or order is made which is not entirely in conformity with the pleadings, the party in whose favour the judgment is pronounced should be called upon to amend his pleadings. For those reasons the rule must be discharged with costs; hearing fee one gold mohur.