Defendant challenged trial-court orders allowing plaintiff's amendment under Order VI Rule 17 and dismissing its Order VII Rule 11(d) plaint-rejection application in a recovery suit pending since 2012.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:29157 WP No. 1728 of 2022 C/W WP No. 2013 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 1728 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 2013 OF 2022(GM-CPC)
IN W.P NO.1728 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DHYANCHINNAPPA., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. SUNDARA RAMAN M V.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. J. HUDSON SAMUEL., ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-A DTD.7.1.2022 PASSED BY THE X ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE IN COM.O.S.NO.433/2020 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT (DEDICATED COMMERCIAL COURT) BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AT BANGALORE DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ORDER VII RULE 11 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.
IN W.P NO.2013 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
M/S. RAYMOND UCO DENIM PVT.LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NEW HIND HOUSE, NAROTTAM MORAJI MARG, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI-400 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR.SHANKAR P.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DHYANCHINNAPPA., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. SUNDARA RAMAN M V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S GENESIS EMBROIDERY PRESENTLY AT NO.30, 2ND CROSS, BILLA REDDY LAYOUT, BANASWADI,BANGALORE 560 043. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRIX,MRS. V.S. D’SOUZA
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. J. HUDSON SAMUEL., ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER (ANNEXURE-A) DATED 07.01.2022 PASSED BY THE X ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, IN COMM.O.S.433 OF 2020 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, (DEDICATED COMMERCIAL COURT), BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, AT BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF PLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner before this Court is defendant. The respondent herein had filed a suit for recovery of money in the year 2012.
NC: 2024:KHC:29157 WP No. 1728 of 2022 C/W WP No. 2013 of 2022
Court has framed the issues. In the year 2020, the matter is referred to the Commercial Court. After the trial was completed and arguments were advanced by both the parties, the plaintiff has filed application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, to substitute the proprietor as plaintiff instead of Proprietorship concern but the cause title shown otherwise and the defendant had filed the petition seeking rejection of the plaint. The Trial Court by the impugned orders had allowed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. Being aggrieved thereby, the defendant is before this Court by way of these two petitions.
in the order, it has been mentioned that Order I Rule 10 of CPC empowers the Court to exercise its power and order any person
to be substituted or added as plaintiff and accordingly, the Court had allowed the application. If the application is allowed as per the powers vested with the Court under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, then the defendant has no objection. But if it is ordered on an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, the same cannot be done as the application is filed at the belated stage. If the same is done by the Court under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, then the defendant cannot press the application that is rejected by the Court i.e., for rejection of the plaint.
submits that in fact the amendment is carried out long back on 12.01.2022 and amended petition is also filed.
case is posted for judgment with a liberty to defendant to file written statement.
that the defendant have also agreed for the same and therefore, they submitted before the Court that the matter may be posted for judgment, which is opposed by the learned Senior counsel submitting that when the defendant has already questioned the said orders before this Court and the same being pending before this Court, the question of the defendant stating that he has no objection for amendment will not arise.
Company was never pointed out by the defendant or not considered by the Court. The application was filed by the
NC: 2024:KHC:29157 WP No. 1728 of 2022 C/W WP No. 2013 of 2022
plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and the Court has observed that by exercising its powers under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, it is ordered. In the considered opinion of this Court, the whole purpose of the procedural law is to do substantial justice to the parties and the Trial Court has rightly observed that it has got inherent powers under Order I Rule 10 of CPC and the same is exercised. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the same and consequently, seeking rejection on the same ground, deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed .
12. All IA’s in the writ petition shall stand closed.
SD/JUDGE
AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court's amendment of the plaint to substitute the proprietrix as plaintiff at a belated stage should be upheld and the plaint-rejection application dismissed?
3 provisions across 1 enactments
M/S Raymond Uco Denim Pvt. Ltd.
M/S Genesis Embroidery
Lalitha Kanneganti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
