TARUN AGARWALA, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri Yogesh Agrawal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shyam Sunder Mishra, the learned Counsel for the opposite party.
(2.) THE plaintiff-opposite party filed a suit against the defendant-petitioner claiming compensation for the negligence committed by the defendant while giving medical treatment to the son of the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, an amendment application was filed to amend certain paragraphs of the plaint and also to implead the son of the plaintiff as plaintiff No. 2. This application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected by the Trial Court, against which, a revision was filed, which was allowed by the impugned order on payment of cost. The defendant-petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not be used for the purpose of impleading a plaintiff and that, for such a purpose, an application under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure could only be filed. Further, assuming that such an order could be passed, the parameters to be considered, under the provision of Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has not been taken into account. The learned Counsel further submitted that the issues have been framed in the year 2006 and the trial has begun, and therefore, at this belated stage, the application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure should not have been allowed. Lastly, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the period of limitation for the relief claimed in the plaint is one year from the date of the distress, as provided under Article 79 of the Schedule I of the Limitation Act, 1963 and therefore, the impleadment of plaintiff No. 2 claiming a relief of damages was beyond the statutory period of limitation.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the submissions raised is bereft of merit. A perusal of the amendment application, no doubt, indicates that the amendment application was filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that, the plaintiff prayed for amendments of various paragraphs of the plaint and also prayed for impieadment of the son of the plaintiff as the plaintiff No. 2. In my opinion, the said application has to be treated as a composite application under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The mere fact that the application did not mention Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the application does not make the application defective or fatal to the decision on the said application. Consequently, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not hold merit.;