AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Eswara Prasad, J.—The petitioner is the 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 86 filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge Kakinada by the respondents 1 and 2, seeking a declaration that the decree in O.S. No. 168/1972 obtained by the petitioner is not binding on them.
The respondents 1 and 2 filed A.A. No. 2350/88 for amendment of the plaint under Order 1, Rule 10, Order 6, rule 17 and Section 151 CPC, stating that the suit was filed on behalf of A.P. Brahma Samaj and Kakinada Brahmasamaj, but by mistake the individual names of respondents 1 and 2 were mentioned as plaintiffs 1 and 2, though they represented the A.P. Brahmasamaj and Kakinada Brahmasamaj respectively, that subsequently new presidents were elected for respondents 3 and 4, registered bodies and that respondents 3 and 4 are to be impleaded as plaintiffs 3 and 4 in the suit and the cause title should be amended accordingly. The learned judge allowed the said application and the revision is filed against the said order.
Sri P. Krishna Reddy learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the suit was filed in the individual names of respondents 1 and 2 and hence the petition should not have been allowed. He further contends that since on their own showing, the respondents 1 and 2 have ceased to be the office-bearers, they have no locus standi to maintain this application.
The application was filed under Order 1, rule 10 and Order 6, rule 17 C.P.C. The Court has the power at many stage of the suit, if it is satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bonafide mistake and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the court may think fit. Obviously, respondents 1 and 2 filed the suit in their individual names by mistake, whereas they should have filed the suit in the name of the Brahmasamaj. Realising this, the present application was filed. In addition to that, respondents 1 and 2 ceased to be the office-bearers and necessarily, the new office-bearers representing their associations should be impleaded. The court below was, therefore, correct in ordering the petition. The revision is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.