1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.8449 OF 2006. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., having its registered office at Oriental House, Asif Ali Road, New Delhi and another ... Petitioners. Versus G.K.Roadways, Transport Contractors & Commission Agents Shah Govind Viramji Compound, Mondha Road, Aurangabad and another ... Respondents. ... Mr.A.A.Joshi, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.K.Barlota, advocate for the Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 served. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 02.07.2009. PER COURT 1. By this petition, the petitioners 2 challenge order rendered by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Aurangabad, on 16.11.2003, whereby their amendment application (Exh.50) filed in suit (Special Civil Suit No.39/2003) came to be rejected. 2. The plaintiffs/petitioners filed suit for recovery of compensation and damages alleging that certain cotton bales were purchased by the Respondent No.2 which were to be transported to one of its Mill called "Jagannath Ltd. Palladam (Tamilnadu). The Respondent No.1 is the original defendant No.1 against whom the claim was made inasmuch as the transport contract was allegedly with him. The contention of the plaintiffs was that the goods were lost by the carrier i.e. the Respondent No.1 and, therefore, the Respondent No.1 was liable to pay compensation amount. The plaintiff No.1 allegedly reimbursed the amount of lost goods to the plaintiff No.2 and, therefore, both of them filed the joint Civil action. It was revealed during the evidence of witness examined on behalf of the plaintiff No.2 that in fact, the transportation contract was not between the 3 plaintiff No.2 and the defendant i.e. the Respondent No.1 but that it was between the Respondent No.1 and the Respondent No.2 to whom the plaintiffs desired to add as a co-defendant vide the proposed amendment. 3. The plaintiffs submitted that the information regarding internal contract between the Respondents was not made available by the plaintiff No.2 prior to filing of the suit and, therefore, the Respondent NO.2 was not originally added in the suit a defendant. The Respondent No.2 is the consignee who complained that the goods were not received. It is true that such amendment was sought, for addition of the Respondent No.2 and for introduction of the case regarding internal transportation agreement between them, at a belated stage. 4. Heard. 5. One can not be oblivious of the fact that the plaintiff No.1 is the real aggrieved party inasmuch as the amount was reimbursed to 4 the plaintiff No.2 being the same payable under the Insurance contract. The plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are both the organisations having several branches. The plaintiff No.2 is a Marketing Federation. The addition of the Respondent NO.2 is sought in order to clarify the fact situation because the loss of the goods was caused to the plaintiff No.2 and the proposed defendant No.2 could have stacked claim about the same. In order to avoid multiplicity of litigation, it is in the interest of justice to allow such amendment. There is no likelihood of any prejudice to the Respondent No.1/defendant if the amendment is allowed because ultimately, the Respondent No.1/defendant is a goods carrier either under the contractual obligation of the plaintiff No.2 or the proposed defendant No.2 and hence, the amendment can not be regarded as unnecessary. It is worthy to be noted that in the pleadings the Respondent No.1/defendant did not clarify the fact that there was no contractual liability as a goods carrier of the plaintiff No. 2. The plaintiff No.2 had filed FIR dated 20.1.2000 at Khultabad Police Station regarding 5 loss of the goods during the transit. Considering these aspects, the amendment sought by the petitioners ought to have been allowed. For, it does not cause any substantial change in the nature of the suit. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is quite perverse and unsustainable. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The amendment application be deemed as allowed and the plaintiff be permitted to carry out the amendment within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of first appearance before the trial Court. The parties to appear before the trial Court on 27.7.2009. The trial Court shall thereafter permit additional written statement of the Respondent No.1 and may give further opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses to him. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp844906