Nikom Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Dalas Biotech Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 1912 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11112/2020

Nikom Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., 510, Keshav Building, Bandra
Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400 051 Through Its
Director
                                             ----Petitioner/Defendant No.4
                                   Versus
1.     M/s Dalas Biotech Ltd., Through Its Manager (Finance), E-
       292, Phase-1, And Spa-503, Riico Industrial Area,
       Bhiwadi, Distt-Alwar
                                            Respondent/Plaintiff

2. M/s Ankur Drugs And Pharma Ltd., Himachal Unit-1 Village Manakpura Post Lodhimajara Tehsil-Nalagarh Badhi Distt.- Solan (Himachal Pradesh)

3. Shri Purendu Jain, Chairman And Managing Director M/s Ankur Drugs And Pharma Ltd. Himachal Unit - 1 Village Manakpura Post Lodhimajara Tehsil-Nalagarh Badhi Distt- Solan (Himachal Pradesh) And 20 Th Floor, , Lotus Business Park, Andheri Link Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053

4. Shri Giriraj Vijayvargiya, Executive Director, M/s Ankur Drugs And Pharma Ltd. Himachal Unit - 1 Village Manakpura, Post Lodhimajara Tehsil- Nalagarh Badhi Distt- Solan (Himachal Pradesh ) And 20 The Floor, Louts Business Park, Andheri Link Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053

----Proforma Respondents/Defendants

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Veyankatesh Garg For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 19/02/2021

This writ petition is directed against the order dated

16.09.2019 passed by the learned Commercial Court No.1, Jaipur

whereby, while allowing application filed by the respondent

No.1/plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC impleading the

petitioner as defendant No.4, the plaintiff was permitted to file

amended plaint/cause title.

(2 of 3) [CW-11112/2020]

Assailing the order impugned to the extent of permitting the

plaintiff to file amended plaint/cause title, learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the learned trial Court, in absence of an

application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, could not have

permitted the plaintiff to file the amended suit. He relied upon

judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Suman Kundra

versus Sanjeev Kundra, AIR 2015 Del 124 in support of his

submission.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

record.

It is trite that after impleadment of a person as a party in

the suit, consequential amendment in the plaint/cause title can be

made. For such consequential amendment in the body of the

suit/cause title, no formal application under Order 6 Rule 17 is

required. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the

petitioner in case of Suman Kundra (supra), is wholly

misconceived. Therein while dismissing the application filed by the

defendant under Section 151 of CPC seeking dismissal of the

divorce petition filed by the respondent/plaintiff on the ground

that a false averment made in the petition with regard to status of

the respondent/plaintiff, the learned trial Court suo moto

permitted amendment in the petition. In those circumstances, the

Hon'ble Court disallowed the amendment; whereas, in the present

case, the learned trial Court has permitted consequential

amendment only in pursuance of impleadment of the petitioner as

a party defendant.

Since, the order impugned does not suffer from any such

illegality or perversity which could invite interference by this Court

under its extraordinary and supervisory jurisdiction vide Article

(3 of 3) [CW-11112/2020]

227 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition is dismissed

being devoid of merit.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Manish/50

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)