IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2051 of 2009 (M/S) 1. Prathvi Raj Chauhan Maha Vidyalaya, Rohalki Kishanpur, District Haridwar, through its President, Sri Prem Chand Jain, S/O Sri Hukam Chand Jain, R/O Bahadrabad, Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil & District Haridwar. 2. Prem Chand Jain, S/O Sri Hukam Chand Jain, R/O Bahadrabad, Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil & District Haridwar, President, Prathvi Raj Chauhan Maha Vidyalaya, Rohalki Kishanpur, District Haridwar. …… Petitioners. Versus 1. Rastriya Inter College Sabha Registered, Rohalki Kishanpur, Bahaddrabad, District Haridwar through its members Rajendra Singh S/O Sri Mool Raj Singh, Prakash Chandra S/O Sri Chhaju Singh & Narendra Singh, S/O Sri Balwant Singh, All R/O Village Rohalki Kishanpur, Bahadrabad, District Haridwar and six others. … Respondents. Sri Lokpal Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Date December 04, 2009. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 17-9-2009 (Annexure-9 to the petition), whereby the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Haridwar has allowed the amendment application (paper no. 49-Ka) moved by the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 212 of 2005. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the Original Suit No. 212 of 2005 was filed on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 through Sri Rajendra Singh, Prakash Chandra and Narendra Singh. An amendment application (49-Ka) was moved by the plaintiffs on the ground that vide resolution of the committee of management dated 23-7-2005, apart from the aforesaid three persons, two other persons, namely Sudesh Kumar and Prithvi 2 Singh were also authorized to file the suit, but inadvertently, the suit was filed only by the three signatories, namely Rajendra Singh, Prakash Chand and Narendra Singh, while the same ought to have been filed by all the aforesaid five persons. Objection against the amendment application was filed by the defendants on the ground that the suit was not maintainable because the members of the executive committee have filed the same, while only the Manager of the institution is the competent and authorized to file the suit. It is well settled that the merit of the case cannot be considered while considering the amendment application. However, the petitioners may raise objection on the point of maintainability of the suit by filing their written statements. If in the written statement, plea is raised to that effect, the court is bound to frame the issues on the pleadings of the parties. In my view no prejudice is caused to the petitioners by adding two persons to the array of parties as per resolution of the committee of management. It is pertinent to mention here that while allowing the amendment application, there is no mention in the order to file additional written statement. If any amendment is made, it is the right of the defendant to file reply to the amended pleadings. The finding of the amendment is hereby affirmed. However, it is provided that if the petitioners make a request to the court to file additional written statement, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Haridwar is directed to grant at least four weeks’ time to file additional written statement to the petitioners. With the above direction, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 3 4