AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The main question here is whether this court has jurisdiction to interfere u/s 115, C.P.C., with the District Judge''s order refusing amendment of
the plaint on the ground that it materially altered the character of the suit. It is evident from his order and from the records that he did exercise his
jurisdiction under Order Order VI, Rule 17, and on that ground no interference is possible. It is then contended that he exercised that discretion
with material irregularity and I am referred to numerous rulings in which orders have been set aside on revision on that ground, the most important
of which are Pramotha Nath Mitra v. Rakhal Das Ally (1910) 11 C.L.J. 420. Dwarkanath Sen v. Kisori Lal Gasain (1910) 11 C.L.J. 426,
Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba ILR (1909) Bom. 664. Charu Chunder Datt v. Sarut Chunder Singh (1910) 12 C.L.J. 537 and C. Rev.
P. No. 556 of 1910. It appears to me, however, that in cases of this sort each case must be treated on its merits. No doubt in this case the
amendments might not have prejudiced respondents to any material extent, but petitioner rushed into court while litigation was still pending and as
the result of such litigation his suit, as framed, was not maintainable and had to be amended in such a way as to alter its nature to some extent. In
fact, in this case, even if I were prepared to hold that the District Judge did exercise his discretion wrongly, I must find that he has not acted with
such material irregularity as to justify interference u/s 115, C.P.C. I am strengthened in my view by the recent ruling in Jothy Mahalinga Iyer (1911)
10 M.L.T. 188. He exercised his jurisdiction and did so on the merits of the case. The mere fact that discretion may be erroneous is no ground for
interference.
The petition is dismissed with costs.