- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 9409 OF 2007 Nimish Anil Thakkar & Ors. ... Petitioners Vs. Sridhar S. Desai & Ors. ... Respondents *** Mr. Prosper D’Souza, for the Petitioners. Mr. C. A. Anthoni a/w Vinod Kothari i/b M/s. Apex Law Partners, for the Respondents. *** CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : JULY 31, 2009. PC :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The petitioners are the original defendants in a suit filed by Vanshavardhana Dyes & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and first to third respondents herein. A written-statement was filed by the petitioners pointing out that the original first plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “Vanshavardhana” for short) was a non-existing company on the date of institution of the suit. It was pointed out that on 15th September 2006, a certificate was issued by the Registrar of Companies recording that the name of the original first - 2 - plaintiff was changed to Nirchem Dyes & Chemicals Private Limited. It was pointed out that the first to third respondents who are second to fourth plaintiffs had claimed that they were Directors of original first plaintiff company. It was submitted that the suit itself was not maintainable on the date it was filed. Written- statement was filed in January 2007. It appears that respondents moved an application for amendment of the plaint relying on the fresh incorporation certificate which shows that name of original first plaintiff was changed to Nirchem Dyes & Chemicals Private Limited. By the impugned order, the said application has been allowed permitting the amendment to the cause title of the plaint for replacing the name of the original first plaintiff by the said Company. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that impugned order is patently illegal in as muchas under Rule 10 of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the application made by the original plaintiffs was not maintainable. The original first plaintiff company was not at all in existence on the day on which the suit was filed. He placed reliance on letter dated 11th July 2005 sent by the second and third defendants. He pointed out that in the said letter that they have clarified that they have ceased to be the Directors of the said Vanshavardhana Company. He submitted that notwithstanding the said letter, the second and third defendants filed the suit claiming to be the directors of the said Company and therefore, filing of the suit is - 3 - nothing but an abuse of process of law. He submitted that under Rule 10 of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the Court had no jurisdiction to pass the order which has been passed. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. The petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled principle that power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised sparingly and only in the appropriate cases. The object of power of superintendence is to ensure that subordinate Courts are kept within their bounds or within their authority. The powers cannot be exercised for correcting mere errors. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the original first plaintiff company “Vanshavardhana” was not in existence in the sense that before filing of the suit, it had undergone a change of name. In fact that is the very case made out by the petitioners. All that has been done by the impugned order is that the name of the original first plaintiff company has been substituted based on a fresh incorporation certificate issued by the Registrar of Companies. The change of name of the Company has been given effect by the amendment. As this is the only impact of the impugned order, this is not a fit case where extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be exercised. As far as action of 2nd and 3rd respondents of filing the suit after issuing the letter dated 11th July 2005 is concerned, the said contention is not affected by the grant of amendment. The said - 4 - contention can always be raised by the petitioners at appropriate stage. It is well settled that while considering an application for amendment of the pleadings, the merits of the amendment cannot be considered. Therefore, the said contention raised by the petitioners is kept open. Subject to what is stated above, the petition is rejected. 4. The petitioners are at liberty to file additional written- statement to the amended plaint. [ A. S. OKA, J.]