AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Wort, Ag. C.J.
This rule is directed against the order of the learned Judge in the Court below allowing an amendment in the following circumstances: The present respondents were party defendants in an action for trespass with regard to a colliery. They were the lessees of the Raja of Jharia who leased out the land to the principal defendants. They were made defendants but applied to be made co-plaintiffs. To this the petitioner before us had no objection. The learned Judge in the Court below has pointed out that they had some sort of cause of action against the defendants, whether in this suit or in another suit is for the purpose of this matter immaterial. Then at a much later date they made this application for amendment claiming damages for loss of royalty against the principal defendants.
Although the argument is directed to the question of the amendment, it is really a question whether the plaintiffs should have been joined as party plaintiffs to the action, once it is decided that they should be joined, the other matter seems to follow necessarily. The latest decision on the point is the case in Pyne v. British Time Recorder Co. Ltd. (1921) 2 K.B. 1. I refer to that case because the rule in question is the same as the rule under the Civil Procedure Code. Whether the respondents have a cause of action or the defendants have a defence against the respondents plaintiffs'' amended claim is not a matter for this Court.
In my judgment there is no ground for interfering, especially as this is an interlocutory matter with the order of the learned [Judge u/s 115, Civil P.C. The application is dismissed with costs; hearing-fee [two gold mohurs.
Manohar Lall J.
I agree. Under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 1, the amendment which has been allowed by the learned Subordinate Judge was amply justified. The added plaintiffs claimed a right to relief arising out of the same transaction, namely the extraction of coal from the colliery in or about 1935.
If they brought a separate suit this common question of law and fact would arise and would be tried by the same Judge against the same defendants-petitioners before us. I do not see how we can interfere in revision in this case.