Case: Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal Vs. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon

1. On March 11, 1950, Manohar Lal s/o Jai Jai Ram commenced an action in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nainital, for a decree for Rs. 10,139/12 being the value of timber supplied to the defendant - the National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon. The action was instituted in the name of Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal" which was the name in which the business was carried on. The plaintiff Manohar Lal subscribed his signature at the foot of the plaint as "Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal, by the pen of Manohar Lal", and the plaint was also similarly verified. The defendant by its written statement contended that the plaintiff was an unregistered firm and on that account incompetent to sue.2. On July 18, 1952, the plaintiff applied for leave to amend the plaint. Monohar Lal stated that "the business name of the plaintiff is Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal and therein Manohar Lal the owner and proprietor is clearly shown and named. It is a joint Hindu family business and the defendant and all knew it that Manohar Lal whose name is there along with the fathers name is the proprietor of it. The name is not an assumed or fictitious one". The plaintiff on those averments applied for leave to describe himself in the cause title as "Manohar Lal proprietor of Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal" and in paragraph 1 to state that he carried on the business in timber in the name of Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal. Apparently no reply was filed to this application by the defendant. The Subordinate Judge granted leave to amend the plaint. He observed that there was no doubt that the real plaintiff was Manohar Lal himself, that it was Manohar Lal who intended to file and did in fact file the action, and that the "amendment was intended to bring what in effect had been done in conformity with what in fact should have been done."3. The defendant then filed a supplementary written statement raising two additional contentions - (1) that Manohar Lal was not the sole owner of the business and that his other brothers were also the owners of the business, and (2) that in any event the amendment became effective from July 18, 1952, and on that account the suit was barred by the law of limitation.4. The Trial Judge decreed the claim for Rs. 6,568/6/3. Against that decree an appeal was preferred to the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court being of the view that the action was instituted in the name of a "non-existing person" and Manohar Lal having failed to aver in the application for amendment that the action was instituted in the name of "Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal" on account of some bona fide mistake or omission, the Subordinate Judge was incompetent to grant leave to amend the plaint. The High Court after making an extensive quotation from the judgment of this Court in Purushottam Umedbhai and Co. v. Messrs. Manilal and Sons, 1961-1 SCR 982  =(AIR 1961 SC 325  ) observed that the action could not be instituted by the plaintiff in the business name; it should have been instituted in the name of the Karta of the Hindu undivided family in his representative capacity or else all the members of the joint family must join as plaintiffs. The Court thensuit instituted by the joint Hindu family business in the name of an assumed business title was a suit by a person, who did not exist and was, therefore, a nullity. Hence there could be no amendment of the description of such a plaintiff who did not exist in the eye of law. The Court below was in obvious error in thinking otherwise and allowing the name of Manohar Lal to be added as proprietor of the original plaintiff Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal, which was neither a legal entity nor an existing person who could have validly instituted theHigh Court was also of the opinion that the substitution of the name of Manohar Lal as a plaintiff during the pendency of the action took effect from July 18, 1952, and the action must be deemed to be instituted on that date: the amendment could not take effect retrospectively and on the date of the amendment the action was barred by the law of limitation. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court with special leave.On March 11, 1950, Manohar Lal s/o Jai Jai Ram commenced an action in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nainital, for a decree for Rs. 10,139/12 being the value of timber supplied to the defendant - the National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon. The action was instituted in the name of Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal" which was the name in which the business was carried on. The plaintiff Manohar Lal subscribed his signature at the foot of the plaint as "Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal, by the pen of Manohar Lal", and the plaint was also similarly verified. The defendant by its written statement contended that the plaintiff was an unregistered firm and on that account incompetent to sue.2. On July 18, 1952, the plaintiff applied for leave to amend the plaint. Monohar Lal stated that "the business name of the plaintiff is Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal and therein Manohar Lal the owner and proprietor is clearly shown and named. It is a joint Hindu family business and the defendant and all knew it that Manohar Lal whose name is there along with the fathers name is the proprietor of it. The name is not an assumed or fictitious one". The plaintiff on those averments applied for leave to describe himself in the cause title as "Manohar Lal proprietor of Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal" and in paragraph 1 to state that he carried on the business in timber in the name of Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal. Apparently no reply was filed to this application by the defendant. The Subordinate Judge granted leave to amend the plaint. He observed that there was no doubt that the real plaintiff was Manohar Lal himself, that it was Manohar Lal who intended to file and did in fact file the action, and that the "amendment was intended to bring what in effect had been done in conformity with what in fact should have been done."3. The defendant then filed a supplementary written statement raising two additional contentions - (1) that Manohar Lal was not the sole owner of the business and that his other brothers were also the owners of the business, and (2) that in any event the amendment became effective from July 18, 1952, and on that account the suit was barred by the law of limitation.4. The Trial Judge decreed the claim for Rs. 6,568/6/3. Against that decree an appeal was preferred to the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court being of the view that the action was instituted in the name of a "non-existing person" and Manohar Lal having failed to aver in the application for amendment that the action was instituted in the name of "Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal" on account of some bona fide mistake or omission, the Subordinate Judge was incompetent to grant leave to amend the plaint. The High Court after making an extensive quotation from the judgment of this Court in Purushottam Umedbhai and Co. v. Messrs. Manilal and Sons, 1961-1 SCR 982  =(AIR 1961 SC 325  ) observed that the action could not be instituted by the plaintiff in the business name; it should have been instituted in the name of the Karta of the Hindu undivided family in his representative capacity or else all the members of the joint family must join as plaintiffs. The Court thensuit instituted by the joint Hindu family business in the name of an assumed business title was a suit by a person, who did not exist and was, therefore, a nullity. Hence there could be no amendment of the description of such a plaintiff who did not exist in the eye of law. The Court below was in obvious error in thinking otherwise and allowing the name of Manohar Lal to be added as proprietor of the original plaintiff Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal, which was neither a legal entity nor an existing person who could have validly instituted theHigh Court was also of the opinion that the substitution of the name of Manohar Lal as a plaintiff during the pendency of the action took effect from July 18, 1952, and the action must be deemed to be instituted on that date: the amendment could not take effect retrospectively and on the date of the amendment the action was barred by the law of limitation. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court with special leave.

Court's reasoning:
5. The order passed by the High Court cannot beIn the present case, the plaintiff was carrying on business as commission agent in the name of "Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal". The plaintiff was competent to sue in his own name as Manager of the Hindu undivided family to which the business belonged; be says he sued on behalf of the family in the business name. The observation made by the High Court that the application for amendment of the plaint could not be granted,because there was no averment therein that the misdescription was on account of a bona fide mistake, and on that account the suit must fail, cannot be accepted. In our view, there is no rule that unless in an application for amendment of the plaint it is expressly averred that the error, omission or misdescription is due to a bona fide mistake, the Court has no power to grant leave to amend the plaint. The power to grant amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitations.8. Since the name in which the action was instituted was merely a misdescription of the original plaintiff, no question of limitation arises; the plaint must be deemed on amendment to have been instituted in the name of the real plaintiff on the date on which it was originally instituted.