Skip to content


Megharaj Agarwala and ors. Vs. Radheshyam Agarwala - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 414 of 1975
Judge
Reported inAIR1977Ori138; 42(1976)CLT1143
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 1, Rule 10(4)
AppellantMegharaj Agarwala and ors.
RespondentRadheshyam Agarwala
Appellant AdvocateH.B. Swain, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateB. Rath, Adv.
DispositionRevision allowed
Excerpt:
.....to the amendment by the defendants 1 and 2. ordinarily the plaintiff who comes to court is the dominus litis and he is the best judge of his own interest it must always be left to him to choose his opponent against whom he has to claim the relief in the suit if he seeks relief against a particular defendant, it is not the lookout of the court or of any other third person to see whether the relief should be claimed against other persons......filed written statement supporting the case of defendants 1 and 2. in the prayer portion of the plaint, plaintiffs had mentioned that the reliefs were claimed against the defendants. they made an application for amendment of the plaint by substituting the words 'defendants 1 and 2' in place of 'defendants' in the prayer portion of the plaint. the application was opposed by defendants 1 and 2. the learned subordinate judge having rejected the prayer for amendment the petitioners have come up in revision.3. order 1, rule 10 (4), c.p.c. providesthat where a defendant is added, theplaint shall, unless the court otherwisedirects, be amended in such manner asmay be necessary. in the original plaintthe plaintiffs claimed the reliefs againstthe defendants 1 and 2 only. defendants3 and 4 were.....
Judgment:
ORDER

P.K. Mohanti, J.

1. This revisional application is directed against an order refusing leave to amend the plaint.

2. Petitioners filed Title Suit No. 124/9 of 1967-73 for declaration of their right of way over plot No. 950 of the fourth settlement situated at Binka and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1 and 2 to remove the unauthorised constructions raised by them over the said plot. They also alleged that people of the locality have a right of way over the said plot and sought for permission to sue on their behalf. Defendants 1 and 2 denied the plaintiffs' right of way and the allegation about the unauthorised construction. In pursuance of the notice issued under Order 1, R. 8, C.P.C. defendants 3 and 4 applied for being added as parties to the suit. They filed written statement supporting the case of defendants 1 and 2. In the prayer portion of the plaint, plaintiffs had mentioned that the reliefs were claimed against the defendants. They made an application for amendment of the plaint by substituting the words 'defendants 1 and 2' in place of 'defendants' in the prayer portion of the plaint. The application was opposed by defendants 1 and 2. The learned Subordinate Judge having rejected the prayer for amendment the petitioners have come up in revision.

3. Order 1, Rule 10 (4), C.P.C. providesthat where a defendant is added, theplaint shall, unless the court otherwisedirects, be amended in such manner asmay be necessary. In the original plaintthe plaintiffs claimed the reliefs againstthe defendants 1 and 2 only. Defendants3 and 4 were impleaded as parties to thesuit on their own initiative although norelief was claimed against them. Afteraddition of the defendants 3 and 4 it wasnecessary to amend the plaint to specifythe defendants against whom the reliefswere claimed. The proposed amendmentis of a formal nature. It does not alterthe nature of the suit in any way.

4. There could be no valid objection to the amendment by the defendants 1 and 2. Ordinarily the plaintiff who comes to court is the dominus litis and he is the best judge of his own interest It must always be left to him to choose his opponent against whom he has to claim the relief in the suit If he seeks relief against a particular defendant, it is not the lookout of the court or of any other third person to see whether the relief should be claimed against other persons.The plaintiff must be allowed full discretion to put his case in the manner he likes and should not be forcibly involved into controversies with persons against whom he does not claim any relief. The learned Subordinate Judge rejected the prayer for amendment on irrelevant grounds.

5. For all these reasons, I am of opinion that the order rejecting the proposed amendment is irregular and unwarranted. This is therefore a fit case for interference in revision.

6. The Civil Revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The plaintiffs' petition dated 2.8-7-75 for amendment is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //