1 SB Civil Writ Petition No.2565/2009 Ranvir Kaur. vs. Sukvinder Kaur. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2565/2009 Ranvir Kaur. vs. Sukvinder Kaur. Date : 30.3.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.R Arora, for the petitioner. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order of the trial court dated 25.2.2009 rejecting his application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent filed suit against two defendants – one Ranvir Kaur widow of Ranjeet Singh and second Karndeep Kaur d/o Ranjeet Singh and inadvertently, for Karndeep Kaur, her father's name has wrongly been mentioned as Ranvir Singh in place of Ranjeet Singh. Karndeep Kaur was minor at the time of filing of the suit. Defendant Ranvir Kaur submitted an application stating that the defendant no.2 has been impleaded 2 SB Civil Writ Petition No.2565/2009 Ranvir Kaur. vs. Sukvinder Kaur. as party by giving wrong name of father and she is minor and the suit has been filed without through any next friend, therefore, the plaintiff's suit may be dismissed. On this, the plaintiff filed one application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and prayed that inadvertently the name of defendant no.2's father has wrongly been mentioned and inadvertently she has not been sued through natural guardian, therefore, she may be permitted to amend the plaint appropriately. The trial court heard on both the applications and passed the order dated 27.9.2008 whereby the trial court allowed the amendment application filed by the plaintiff and permitted the plaintiff to put proper parentage of the defendant no.2 with she being sued through her natural guardian her mother Ranvir Kaur. It appears from the order dated 27.9.2008 that in the last but one para, the trial court committed mistake in mentioning that since Karndeep Kaur was minor at the time of filing of the suit, therefore, the suit against her has been dismissed by the trial court. But neither there is any order of rejection of suit against the defendant no.2 in the said order nor it could have been because that would have gone 3 SB Civil Writ Petition No.2565/2009 Ranvir Kaur. vs. Sukvinder Kaur. contrary to the order passed on the plaintiff's application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC allowing her to properly describe the defendant no.2 and her representation in the suit. Be it as it may be, the defendant no.1 submitted an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by taking benefit of that inadvertent wrong observation of the trial court that the suit against the defendant no.2 has already been rejected. The defendant no.2 further submitted that in fact, the suit against Karandeep Kaur has not been dismissed and the suit was permitted to be amended so that she may be represented by natural guardian of the defendant no.2. According to the defendant no.1, in the amended plaint, the cause of action has changed. This application on the face of it was absolutely frivolous. The trial court only allowed the amendment in the plaint so as to correctly describe the defendant no.2. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that the trial court's observation in last but one para can be treated to be rejection of suit against the defendant no.2, even then, the defendant no.1 in her application 4 SB Civil Writ Petition No.2565/2009 Ranvir Kaur. vs. Sukvinder Kaur. clearly stated that the suit against the defendant no.2 has not been dismissed. Even if the plaint against the defendant no.2 would have been dismissed by the trial court, then also the plaintiff would have right to get the correct party impleaded and that has already been done by the plaintiff by amendment. In view of the above, neither there was any change in cause of action nor it could have been a ground for seeking rejection of the plaint. In view of the above reasons, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Consequently, this writ petition, having no merits, is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya