- (1.) The Court : This hearing arose out of a petition filed by the plaintiff praying for amendment of the plaint in the manner described in the petition. By the proposed amendment the plaintiff wants to change the description of the defendant No. 1 in the manner indicated hereinbelow: The existing description of the defendant No. 1 is :- "Regional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, having its Regional Office, inter alia, at Himalaya House, 38/B, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta-700 071, within the Jurisdiction of Hon'ble Court." After the proposed amendment, the description will be : "United India Insurance Company Limited, an existing Company within the meaning of the Companies Act, having its Registered and Head Office at 24, Whites Road, Madras- 600 014 outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and Regional Office, inter alia, at Himalaya House, 38/B, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta-700 071, within the Jurisdiction of Hon'ble Court."
(2.) It is contended that due to bona fide mistake on the part of the learned advocate of the petitioner, certain errors crept in and those are required to be removed for proper and concrete adjudication of this suit and also for the ends of justice.
(3.) The said petition is opposed by the defendant No. 2 after using an Affidavit-in-Opposition. The first attack is that the said amendment petition is not supported by any notice of motion within the meaning of Chapter XX Rule 3 of the Original Side Rules of the High Court at Calcutta. Secondly, it is contended that no Masters Summons was also taken out under the provisions of Chapter VI Rule 3 of the said Original Side Rules though the petition for leave to amend come under the purview of item No. 12 of Rule 11 of the said Chapter. Thirdly, it is contended that the petition being not supported by an affidavit, it is liable to be rejected in limine. The fourth attack is on the nature of the amendment and it is contended that if there is any mis-description about the defendant No. 1, the description of the officers appearing against defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 may be deleted and lastly, it is contended that by dint of the proposed amendment a new legal entity is going to be introduced thereby giving rise to a fresh cause of action and hence, the amendment should not be allowed inasmuch as the proposed cause of action is barred by limitation and a legal right has accrued to the defendants. On this score, the learned counsel for the defendant No. 2 placed reliance on a decision of the apex Court reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2358 (Radhika Devi v. Bajrangi Singh and Ors.).;