Delhi High Court
M/S Modi Rubbers Ltd. vs Modipon Ltd. & Anr. on 5 March, 2009
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 2.3.2009
Date of Order: 5th March, 2009
IA No. 14709/2008 in CS(OS) No. 2761/1995
% 05.03.2009
M/s Modi Rubbers Ltd. ... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. A.Dipankar, Mr. S.P.Jha &
Mr. Shiv Raj, Advocates
Versus
Modipon Ltd. & Anr. ... Defendants
Through: Mr. Raunak Dhillon, Advocate &
Mr. Amit Bansal, Advocate
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
ORDER
This application has been made under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for
amendment of the suit. The plaintiff had filed this suit for declaration, permanent
injunction and for recovery of money. When the suit was filed defendant M/s Modi
Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'MSWL') was a
sick company within the meaning of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act
and in view of Section 22(1) of SICA no substantial relief was claimed against the sick
company and relief was claimed against earlier defendant no.1, Punjab National Bank.
During pendency of the suit, the status of MSWL changed and its petition to be declared
as a sick company was dismissed and an appeal also got dismissed, with the result that
plaintiff amended the suit and claimed substantial relief against MSWL also. However,
subsequently plaintiff and earlier defendant no.1 (PNB) jointly filed an application being
IA No. 11604/2007 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC for deletion of name of Punjab
National Bank from the array of parties. This Court vide order dated 11th March 2008
allowed this application and deleted the name of Punjab National Bank from the array of
parties and this Court also gave directions to the plaintiff to amend the plaint accordingly.
The plaintiff has moved this application after deletion of the name of Punjab National
Bank from the array of parties to renumber the defendants and to make necessary
changes in the plaint in view of deletion of name of Punjab National Bank from the array
of parties.
2. A perusal of amendments shows that plaintiff has not made any
substantial change in the suit and has made only consequential amendment as a result
of deletion Punjab National Bank as a party. The application has been opposed by
defendant no.1 i.e. M/s Modipon Ltd., defendant no. 2 M/s Modi Spinning and Weaving
Mills Company Ltd. (MSWL) has not filed any reply to that application. As per defendant
no.1 the entire nature of the suit changes if this amendment is allowed. It is submitted
that earlier no relief had been claimed against defendant no.2 (now defendant no.1 after
deletion of PNB) and now the entire claim is made against defendants no.1&2 and PNB
has been let off. It is stated that the compromise arrived at between plaintiff and Punjab
National Bank has not been disclosed to the defendant and defendant was not aware
about any terms of compromise with Punjab National Bank. Plaintiff could not have
given up the relief against Punjab National Bank and could not have claimed substantial
reliefs from other defendants.
3. The objection taken by defendant no.1 against amendment is baseless.
This Court vide order dated 11th March, 2008 itself had observed that in view of deletion
of name of Punjab National Bank from array of parties, plaintiff would have to amend the
suit. Accordingly, this Court gave time to plaintiff to file amendment application. This
amendment is a consequence of deletion of Punjab National Bank from the array of
parties and making necessary changes in the plaint so that the suit was not against
Punjab National bank but against other defendants only.
4. The basic relief claimed by the plaintiff is in respect of amount given to
the defendants. Punjab National Bank was a guarantor, since the plaintiff has not
pressed its claim against Punjab National Bank, plaintiff's claims against other
defendants cannot be defeated and plaintiff has a right to make necessary changes in
the plaint. I, therefore, allow this application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Amended
plaint is taken on record. WS to the amended plaint be filed within 04 weeks.
CS(OS) No. 2761/1995
List on 20th May, 2009.
March 05, 2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn
