-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.2544 of 1998 1. Sau.Meera Shrikrishna Nene since deceased through her legal heirs: 1a.Shri Deepak Shrikrishna Nene Adult, residing at Nene Bungalow Parvati Vandan, near Dr.Sakekar Hospital, Vishrambaug, Sangli. 2. Yashwant Daryappa Mane Patil residing at Tasgaon, Sangli ..Petitioners vs. 1. The Tasgaon Electricity General Coop.Society Ltd. Registered office Tasgaon through the Managing Director Dattatraya Jagannath Kutte Age 73 6years, Occ:Contractor residing at Tasgaon, Dist. Sangli. 2. The Tasgaon Electricity General Coop.Society Ltd.’ Registered office Tasgaon through its Chairman/Managing Director Narayan Govind Mali Aged 82 years, Occ:Pensioner residing at Tasgaon, Dist. Sangli. 2a. Vishnupant Baburao Hulawane Chairman/Managing Director of Tasgaon Electricity General Coop.Society Ltd. residing at Tasgaon, Dist.Sangli. 3. Sou.Vatsala Arun Pathak Aged 60 years, Occ:Household residing at Pathak Bungalow Miraj, Dist. Sangli 4. Sou.Rohini Prabhakar Kulkarni Aged 50 years, Occ:Household residing at Maruti Galli, Belgaum (Karnataka) ..Respondents -2- Shri R.S.Apte for petitioners. Shri S.G.Page for respondent nos.1. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 1st February, 2008 1st February, 2008 1st February, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The matter was placed before me for consideration of the request for early hearing. At that stage, this writ petition is heard finally with the consent of the parties. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Sangli on 8th January, 1998 rejecting the Revision Application preferred by the petitioners. 2. In Civil Revision Application No. 9 of 1996, the case of the petitioners is that they have filed a suit being Suit no.331 of 1998 against the respondents. To be precise, the predecessor in title of the petitioners was the owner of the suit property. There was tenancy agreement between the predecessor in title of the petitioners Manoramabai and the predecessor in title of respondent nos. 1 and 2. The tenancy agreement was executed on 21st November, 1951 for a period of 30 years and it expired on -3- 21st November, 1981. Respondent no.1 is the Eectricity Generation society. It was arrayed as Defendant through its Managing Director. It was the case of the petitioners’ predecessor in title that the tenancy agreement has not been extended. In fact, it was terminated but respondent nos. 1 and 2 failed to surrender the possession and that is how the suit came to be filed. The predecessor in title thereafter expired and the petitioners along with respondent nos. 3 and 4 and Kumudini Yeshwant Jog were brought on record as plaintiffs. 3. The suit has been contested in as much as the written statement has been filed by respondent nos.1 and 2. It appears that on 5th March, 1994 the petitioners sold the property to one Yeshwant Dariyappa Manepatil giving him all rights including to recover possession. There is a sale deed. An application was made, on 16th March, 1994 ( Exh.39), by the said Mane Patil for adding him as a party plaintiff in the said suit on the ground that he has stepped into the shoes of the original plaintiff being subsequent purchaser of the immovable property. The application was rejected on 23rd March, 1994 on the ground that no provisions of law were -4- pointed out which would enable the said Manepatil to step in. 4. During the pendency of the application by Shri Manepatil, the original plaintiff filed an application at Exh.40 for amendment which was to bring the said purchasers on record and for consequential amendment. That application was contested by defendants/respondent nos. 1 and 2 by filing the reply. It appears that the original plaintiff’s application for amendment was pending and during pendency of the same, purchaser Mane Patil filed fresh application dated 6th August, 1994 under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That application was also decided and it appears that the same has also been rejected on 8th February, 1995,. It appears that the said purchasers was advised also to file a Review Application seeking review of the earlier rejection, which review application was heard and rejected on 17th December, 1994. All this led to the petitioners’ application which was pending for amendment being rejected as well. 5. It appears that the plaintiffs have made an application under Order 6 Rule 17 (Exh.88) on -5- 24th July, 1996 once again for amendment and the application for amendment was rejected. The only reason assigned by the learned Judge while rejecting all these applications is that the earlier application of similar nature were rejected. It is in these circumstances, that the rejection of the final application preferred by the original plaintiff led to filing of the revision application before the District Court, Sangli which also having been rejected the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed. 6. I have heard Shri Apte appearing for the petitioners and Shri Page appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2/original defendants. With their able assistance I have perused the petition and annexures thereto including the impugned order. 7. It is undisputed before me that the purchaser as also the plaintiffs have applied for amendment of the plaint on the ground that the property has changed hands. The subsequent purchaser has applied for substituting him as plaintiff so as to enable him to prosecute the suit. Both sides do not dispute that there is a -6- provision enabling such an amendment application to be preferred. If any reference is necessary, then, it can usefully be made to section 153, order 6 Rule 17 and order 22 of Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In my view, absence of provisions being set out in the application or that there is omission on the part of the pleader to refer to them should not have led to these applications being rejected. It is not as if by allowing or by granting such an amendment, legality or validity of the transaction between the original plaintiff and subsequent purchaser is concluded. It is only to enable the purchaser to prosecute the suit in the light of the sale deed executed in his favour that such an application was moved. In my view, that application could not have been rejected. The rejection of one application filed by the purchaser, led to his filing another application and also seeking the review. All applications having been rejected does not mean that the original plaintiff’s application should also have been rejected. Time and again the Supreme Court has emphasised that all procedural laws are handmaids of justice. They are made to enable a Court of law to render justice and not to thwart it. Rules of procedure and -7- technicalities should not be construed so that justice becomes casuality. Precisely that has happened in this case. Further, the contents of the application also need not be reproduced because in the revisional order itself the learned Judge has referred to all these applications and only ground for rejecting them was rejection of earlier application. To my mind, the order under challenge cannot be sustained. I am unable to understand as to how the learned Judge prevented the petitioner or the original plaintiff from impleading the subsequent purchaser and amending the plaint. There is no absolute principle of finality or resjudicata to such matters. The property had changed hands according to the original plaintiff. The suit is also pending. It is not as if there is no right to get the subsequent purchaser substituted. In such circumstances, it is immaterial whether an earlier application being made or rejected. As observed above, technical rules including that of resjudicata could not have been invoked in the peculiar facts of this case. 8. In these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained. They are quashed and set -8- aside. The application (Exh.47) preferred by Shri Mane Patil is allowed and he shall be substituted as party plaintiff in the suit and the suit shall be allowed to be prosecuted by him in accordance with law. All contentions on merits of the controversy are kept open. It will be open for respondent nos.1 and 2 to urge that Shri Mane Patil cannot seek their eviction from the premises and all pleas in that behalf as well are kept open. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)