1. This is an application in civil revision by the plaintiffs against an order dated 5th July 1934 by a Munsif on an application to amend the plaint. The plaintiffs brought a suit for possession of a certain plot of land alleging that the plot belonged to them as zamindars and that defendants 1 and 2 ,had made unauthorised constructions on the plot, and the plaint asked for possession after demolition of these unauthorised constructions and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs understood that defendants 1 arid 2 had made these constructions in a representative capacity and the plaint sets out that defendant 1 was president; of the Sana tan Dharma Sabha and defendant 2 was secretary of that society. The plaintiffs took proceedings with permission of the Court under Order 1, Rule 8 to make the defendants representatives of that society and of its members in the locality in question. The defendants filed a written statement that the Ramlila committee was in adverse possession of the entire plot and that the suit was not maintainable as the Ramlila committee was not made a party. The plaintiffs thereupon applied for the amendment of the plaint asking that it, should be noted against the names of defendants 1 and 2 that they were president and secretary respectively of the Ramlila committee also and it was further asked that Lachhman Bhat, alleged in the written statement to be manager of the Ramlila committee, should be made a defendant, and that the plot in suit should be described in the plaint as in the possession of the defendants as members of the Ramlila committee. The Court below passed the following order:
I have heard the vakils for the parties. The plaintiffs seek to alter the property in dispute to a large extent and to alter the vary nature of their claim. I cannot allow such an amendment, The application for amendment is therefore rejected.
2. In revision it is contended in ground No. 2 that the Court is not correct in stating that the plaintiffs seek to alter the nature of the suit, and in ground No. 4 that the amendment merely sought to add one defendant and to give a further description of the defendants already on the record and that the property had already been described in the plaint; further in ground No. 5 that the rejection of the application would plead to multiplicity of suits. For the opposite parties it is contended that the order of the lower Court did not amount to 'a case decided' within the meaning of Section 115, Civil P.C. Learned Counsel for the applicants relied on the ruling reported in Rurahmal v. Ramnath Kalil Man 1935 All. 353. In that ruling a Bench of this Court held that the refusal by a Court to allow amendment of the plaint was a case decided within the meaning of Section 115, Civil P.C. and further that in that particular case the refusal amounted to a disregard of the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 and the lower Court had acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction and therefore a revision would lie under the third provision of Section 115, Civil P.C. In view of this ruling I consider that I should hold that the refusal to allow an amendment of the plaint, is a case decided within, the meaning of Section 115, Civil P.C. I do mot think that that ruling is shown to be contrary to Gaputa & Co. v. Kirpa Ram & Bors. 1934 All. 620. On the further point, as to whether the lower Court acted with material irregularity in, refusing to allow an amendment under Order 6, Rule 17, the provisions of that, rule state that:
all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.
3. In the present suit, the plaintiffs objected to the constructions made by the defendants on a certain plot. Those constructions did not bear any label as to the capacity in, which the defendants had acted when they made the constructions. It was therefore not possible for the plaintiffs to know the particular capacity in which the defendants claimed to have made the constructions. The plaintiffs sued the defendants in their capacity as president and secretary of one society and the defendants replied that when they made the constructions they were acting in those capacities for another society. The real question between the parties could not be properly decided without allowing this amendment. It appears to me to be desirable that the present suit should describe the defendants in both capacities in order that other persons may not subsequently claim that a decree passed in the present suit would not bind the members of both societies. It is desirable that there should not be multiplicity of suits on this a rather trivial matter but that the matter should be decided once and for all in a suit showing what the actual merits of the case are for the construction of these things on the plot in question. For these reasons I consider that the lower Court acted with, material irregularity in failing to allow the amendment and that the lower Court should have used its discretion to obtain jurisdiction over the whole of the subject-matter in dispute between the parties. Accordingly I consider that this is a proper case for the interference of this Court in revision. I therefore allow the application with costs in both Courts and I direct that the plaint should be amended as prayed.