Claramma vs Threesa and Another

K. John Mathew, J.—The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. The suit is for an injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing or otherwise interfering with the B schedule property. That suit was decreed ex parte and subsequently the'' ex parte decree was set aside. In the written statement it was contended that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiff filed I. A. No. 574 of 1984 for impleading additional defendants 3 and 4. That application was allowed after hearing the parties. However it would appear that the office insisted that the plaintiff should carry out the amendment in the original plaint. Since the plaintiff did not carry out the amendment, the application for impleading was dismissed. Subsequently he filed I. A. No. 2337 of 1984 to review that order and it was also dismissed. This C. R. P. is filed against the abovesaid order. The impleading petition is filed under Order I rule 10 C. P. C. and it cannot be treated as a petition for amendment under Order VI rule 17 C. P. C. If an amendment of the pleadings under Order VI rule. 17 is allowed by a court, the party is bound to carry out the amendment under rule 18 of that Order. But it is specifically provided in rule 21 (2) of the Civil Rules of Practice that where any person is made a party to a suit, appeal or proceeding, the name of such person and other details shall be entered in the plaint, appeal memorandum or proceeding in red ink-over the signature of the Chief Ministerial Officer and also in the institution register. The proceedings under which such addition is made shall also be entered therein. Further directions as to how the numbering of the parties is to be made is also provided for in rule 21 (2). Therefore it is clear that where additional parties are impleaded, it is the duty of the office to carry out such amendment in the pleadings. Only amendment of the pleadings as contemplated under Order VI rule 17 C. P. C. need be earned out by the party. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner brought to my notice the ruling reported in H.H. Darbar Alabhai Vajsurbhai Vs. Bhura Bhaya, wherein it is held as follows at page 406:

.........it was no part of the appellants'' duty to take the necessary steps to carry out the Court's order for the substitution of the names of the heirs of the deceased respondents who were properly served with notices in order to correct the record of the court in terms of its order. That was a ministerial function which the Court's establishment was charged to perform. If it was not performed or neglected, the fault would not lie with the appellants.

Under these circumstances the order of the lower court is set aside and the office of the trial court is directed to carry out the order I. A. No. 574/1984 in the plaint. The lower court will dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and in any case within five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.