P. SCSHAPPA SETTY AND OTHERS Vs. KATTA VENKATARAMANA SETTY AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
P. Scshappa Setty
Katta Venkataramana Setty And Others
Referred Judgements :-
R. KASI VISVANADHA MUDALIAR VS. V.A. KUPPUSWAMI NAIDU AND OTHERS
BABURAM VS. OCHHELAL
Click here to view full judgement.
PADMANABHIAH, J. -
(1.)THIS is a revision petition preferred by the Petitioners against the order of the learned Respondent, lot amendment of the plaint in Original Suit No. 45 of 1954.Subordinate Judge, Bellary, allowing I. A. No. 311 of 1954 filed by the
(2.)THE Petitioners are the Defendants and the Respondents the Plaintiffs In the lower Court. Plaintiffs' suit in the lower Court is for two recovery of Rs. 7,000/ - due on certain hundies exe cured by Defendant 1. The allegations made in the plaint are that Defendant 1 as manager of Defendants' family borrowed on 23 -3 -19654 Rs. 7,000 and executed the suit hundies. But alter the suit was filed, it appears that the office took objection that the hundies on which the suit was bas ed were inadmissible in evidence, the same having not been written on Mysore Stamp Paper. Then folic Plaintiffs mod an application as per I. A. No. 311 of 1954 under Order 6, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure praying for the amendment of the plaint. The amendment sought was that Defendant 2 manager of the joint family of Defendants had along with the Plaintiffs between 5 -11 -52 and 3 -54, that on settlement of accounts the defoliants were found due to the extent ot Rs. 7,000/ -that in satisfaction of that debt, the suit hundies were executed.
This application was opposed by the de fondants on the ground that the same was" not maintainable, that the amendment, of allowed, would have the effect of substituting an entirely new case, that it would also have the effect of altering the cause of action and the nature and Scope of the suit, and that the application should be dismissed. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the amendment, and as against that order this revision petition is filed.
(3.)THE only point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the learned Subordinate Judge cannot be sustained. It appears to rue that the said order has to be upheld. The question that arises for decision is whether a creditor can be allowed to amend the plaint so as to but his suit on the original cause of action when it is found for any reason that he cannot maintain a suit on an instrument like a promote, I a' a hundi as in this case, as being inadmissible some legal or technical around.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.