A.P.SEN, J. - (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's revision against an order passed by the trial court under Order 16 Rule 1(ii) of the Code of Civil Procedure, refusing to record the evidence of the plaintiff.
(2.) THE Mahalakshmi Mills Co. Ltd. (Beawar a Government of India Controlled Undertaking) through the Authorised Controller, filed a suit fur recovery of Rs. 2,700/ - as damages for breach of contract, as also on account of godown charges against the defendant, for his failure to take delivery of certain cloth bales. The Mills was declared to be a sick undertaking on 9.1.1967 under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. The contracts in question for the supply of cloth bales were entered into by the Authorised Controller on 18.7.1968, 8.11.19668 and 26.11.1960. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant committed a breach by failing to lift some of the bales and, therefore, it was compelled to resell the bales, as a result of which it suffered a loss on account of resale and it also claimed godown charges. The Issues were struck on 9.7.1973. A list of witnesses was not filed by the plaintiff filed 22.9.1973 i.e. beyond the period of 30 days specified in Order 16 Rule 1(i) of the Code, as amended by the Rajasthan High Court. On 8.10.1973 i.e., the date fixed for the evidence, the plaintiff's 3 witnesses mentioned in the list, tamely, Ramvilas, Sohanlal and Rameshchandra were present and the plaintiff wanted to tender their evidence. The trial court, however, refused to record their evidence on the ground that the list was not filed within the period of 30 days specified under Order 16 Rule 1(i), besides the plaintiff has not filed an application seeking its permission to produce witnesses nor had shown any cause for not filing the list in time, Hence the revision. During the pendency of the revision, the plaintiff -Mills was nationalized by the Government of India under the Sick Textiles Undertaking (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 and it was taken over by the Central Government. The Act provides by Section 3 for the vesting of the plaintiff Mills in the National Textile Corporation. The plaintiff Mills accordingly filed an application under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code for substitution of the National Textile Corporation as the applicant. The application for substitution was opposed by the respondent. It was urged that the present suit does not fall within the class of suits described in Section 4(6) and, therefore, the proceeding in revision cannot be continued by the National Textile Corporation. AN against this, the contention of the National Textile Corporation is that under Section 4(1), the effect of the vesting of the sick textile undertakings, is that all rights vest in the National Textile Corporation. It is urged that the section is wide enough to include the right to centime the proceedings ID revision. It is urged that Section 4(6) only relates to any suit, appeal or otter proceeding in relation to any matters specified in Sub -section (2) of Section 5. It is pointed out that Section 5 of the Act only relates to certain liabilities which are taken over by the National Textile Corporation. The submission is that Sub -section (6) of Section 4 only relates to continuance of proceedings for the enforcement of liabilities, and does not relate to any suit, appeal or other proceeding for enforcement of any rights. My attention is also drawn to the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act under which the National Textile Corporation, to the exclusion of the sick textile undertakings is entitled to make realisations pertaining to the date prior to the appointed date.
(3.) HAVING given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions, I deem it proper to substitute the National Textile Corporation in addition to the Mahalakshmi Mills Co. Ltd. as a co applicant. This shall be without prejudice to the rights of the defendant to contest the right of the National Textile Corporation to be impleaded as a plaintiff. That is an issue to be tried in the suit.;