AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.V. Gupta, J.—This petition is directed against the order of the trial court dated 26th August, 1985, whereby an amendment of the plaint has been allowed.
The Plaintiff filed the present Suit in December, 1982, for declaration challenging the resolution dated 16th March, 1980. The present application for amendment of the plaint was moved on 25th April, 1985. By virtue of the proposed amendment, the Plaintiff wanted to plead certain mala fides on the part of Sewak Ram and Satya Pal who are admittedly not parties to the suit. The suit was filed only against the Society known as the Servants of People Society, Lajpat Bhawan, New Delhi. In the plaint, certain mala-fides were alleged against other persons, but according to the Plaintiff due to inadvertence, the facts relating to the mala fides of the above-aailtwo persons could not be pleaded in the plaint and the is corporation thereof was very essential. This application was contested on behalf of the Defendant. However, the learned trial court took the view that an amendment could be allowed at any stage and if the Plaintiff it allowed to amend the suit, it could not be held to be time barred. Dissatisfied with the same, the Defendant has filed this petition in this Court.
The petition was admitted as it was stated at the motion hearing that the persons against whom mala-fides are being alleged now by way of amendment are not parties to the suit and, therefore, the amendment as such could not be allowed The learned Counsel for tie Petitioner submitted that unless the said two persons, namely Sewak Ram and Satya Pal, are made parties to the suit, no mala fides could be alleged against them in the plaint, and, thus, argued the learned Counsel, the trial court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction, causing failure of justice. In support of his contention, he referred to Smt. Shraddha Kumari Vs. Lucknow University and Others, . On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff submitted that since no relief was being claimed against the aforesaid two persons, the question of impleading then as parties to the suit did not arise. In any case, argued the learned Counsel, since mala-fides were already alleged against Shri B.N. Dass, Krishen Kant, Manu Bhai Pate), therefore, the same are being sought to be alleged now against Sewak Ram and Satya Pal as well. It was further contended that the delay by itself could not be a ground for disallowing the amendment.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that no such amendment could be allowed by the trial court. Admittedly, Sewak Ram and Satya Pal are not parties to the suit Ordinarily, no mala-fides can be alleged against a person who it not a party to the litigation, and in case any mala" fides are to be alleged then for that purpose he has to be impleaded as a party to the litigation. The mere fact that certain mala fides were alleged against other persons, was no ground to seek the amendment. In these circumstances, the application for amendment was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The resolution dated 16th March, 1980, removing the Plaintiff from the membership of the Society was passed by the Society itself, and, therefore, the question of alleging mala-fides against individual members as such did not arise.
Not only that, the conduct of the Plaintiff speaks for itself. The suit has been ponding since December, 1982. The present application was filed in April, 1985, No explanation has given in the application for not making such an application earlier Since the Plaintiff is in occupation of the premises of the Society, the whole effort seems to be to delay the proceedings in the suit Thus, the application was not filed with a bona-fide intention. Consequent this petition succeeds., the impugned order is set aside and the application for amendment of the plaint is dismissed with costs
Since the matter has been pending for the last more than three years it is directed that the parties will lead their evidence at their own responsibility. However, Dasti summons be given, if desired, as provided under Order 16, R. 7-A, CPC The disposal of the suit be expedited and the suit be disposed of preferably within three months.