Bharathan vs Kochappi and Others

K.T. Koshi, C.J.—The suit has been dismissed on a very flimsy ground that the amended plaint has not been signed by all the plaintiff''s, but by plaintiff 3 alone. Even if that were a defect the suit should have been proceeded with the original plaint as the plaint in the suit - see Order 6 Rule 18, C.P C. But what happened here is not that the amendments were not carried out, but the method of carrying it out was irregular. We regret even that is a thorough misconception. When the amendments were incorporated in the copy of the plaint produced by the plaintiff, 3, what the court had to do was to get the amendments incorporated in the original plaint, call upon the defendants to file additional written statements, if any and then proceed with the suit in the usual way. In the circumstances we feel constrained to allow the appeal and remit the case back to the lower court to be proceeded within the light of the observations herein contained. The respondent''s learned counsel however pointed out that another ground is also mentioned in the judgment for dismissing the suit, namely, the failure to implead the legal heirs of the plaintiff 1 who died. The appellant''s counsel contends that his heirs were sought to be impleaded and that that petition was also dismissed along with the suit. We leave the question as to what result follows as the result of the alleged failure to implead the legal heirs of the plaintiff 1 open. The order dismissing the petition for impleading is set aside. The lower court will hear the parties afresh on that matter and decide what course should be followed.

With these observations we allow the appeal and remit the case back to the lower court for fresh trial and disposal according to law. The court-fee paid on the memorandum of appeal will be refunded to the appellant and except for that we make no order for costs in the appeal.