- (1.) The affidavit-in-opposition and affidavit-in-reply in G.A. No. 68 of 2020 and affidavit-in-opposition in G.A. No. 69 of 2020 filed in Court are taken on record.
(2.) The aforesaid two applications have been filed by the plaintiff in a disposed of suit. The suit was for recovery of possession and mesne profit with other consequential reliefs. The suit was decreed on 12th August, 2011, inter alia, by granting recovery of possession and appointing a Special Referee to determine the mesne profit for a particular period. The decree was carried in appeal when the proceedings before the Special Referee remained stayed. The appeal being APD No. 319 of 2011 was dismissed on 20th August, 2019. After dismissal of the appeal the proceedings before Special Referee commenced and the plaintiff also filed an execution application. Both the proceedings are pending. In course of execution it was detected by the decree holder that the name in which the decree was made is not the correct name of the plaintiff as the decree was passed on 12th August, 2011 but on 2nd August, 2011 the name of the plaintiff has changed from EIC Holdings Ltd. to EIC Holdings Pvt. Ltd.
(3.) The applicant seeks amendment to the cause title to the plaint by changing EIC Holdings Ltd. to EIC Holdings Pvt. Ltd. in G.A. No. 69 of 2020. Since the said application for amendment has been made after a considerable delay the applicant has also taken out an application being G.A. No. 68 of 2020 for condoning the delay in making the application for amendment. The condonation of delay has been opposed by the defendant on the ground that the matter was proceeded with in the name of a non-existing company for a considerable period of time which could not have been done. The decree was passed in wrong name as by the time the decree was passed, the plaintiff's name has changed. Even at the appellate stage this was not brought to the notice of the Court. The decree was drawn up in a wrong name. Only at the execution stage on detecting the defect the instant application has been made. There is a delay of more than 9 years from the passing of the decree dated 12th August, 2011. The defendant further submits that the delay has not been properly explained.;