2012 AIR CC 2538 (GUJ) ::AIROnline 2013 SC 581 ::(2013) 1 Scale 630 ::(2013) 2 Rec Civ R 451 ::2013 (3) SCC 182 ::2013 (2) Mad LW 578 ::2013 (2) Land LR 193 ::2013 (2) Cal HN 43 ::2013 (1) Rent CR 362 ::2013 (1) ICC 115 ::2013 (1) Cur Leg R 530 ::2013 (1) Cur CC 143 ::(2013) 1 CurCC 143 ::AIR 2013 (NOC) (SUPP) 1167 (GUJ.) ::(2012) 3 Guj LR 2191 ::(2013) 1 ICC 115 ::(2012) 2 Guj LH 447 ::(2013) 2 Mad LW 578 ::(2013) 2 LandLR 193 ::(2013) 1 RenCR 362 ::(2013) 1 RentLR 258 ::(2013) 123 AllIndCas 577 (GUJ)

Gujarat High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): Sonia Gokani , J

(A) Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) O. 6, R. 17— Amendment of plaint — Permissibility — Suit was for recovery of sum — Company sought amendment of plaint on account of change in its name due to merger — Court while allowing merger, permitted to continue cause of recovery of sum — Amendment was absolutely necessary for determining real question in controversy which was recovery of sum — Amendment can be allowed at any stage of proceedings — Amendment allowed (Para 18,24)

(B) Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) O. 6, R. 17— Constitution of India, Art 227 — Invoking supervisory jurisdiction of High Court for allowing amendment of plaint — Permissibility — Trial Court has allowed amendment on well settled principles — Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court not required to be invoked as there was no jurisdictional error or any material or manifest illegality in order of Trial Court (Para 19)

(C) Limitation Act (36 of 1963) Art. 137 — Civil P C (5 of 1908), O 6, R 17 — Applicability of residuary clause of Art 137 — O 6, R 17 of Code clearly provides that amendment can be carried out at any stage and more particularly pre-trial stage — When statute itself is amply clear about limitation, residuary clause of Limitation Act cannot be resorted to (Para 20)

(D) Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) O. 6, R. 17— Amendment of plaint — Consideration of limitation and merits of case — Requirement — Court is not required to consider question of limitation or merits of case while allowing amendment application (Para 21)

(E) Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) O. 22, Rr. 8, 10 — Applicability — O 22 deals with death, marriage and insolvency of parties — R 8 deals with bar of suit in case of insolvency of plaintiff — R 10 lays down procedure in case of assignment, creation or devolution of any interest before final order in suit — Suit was for recovery of sum and company sought amendment in plaint on account of change in its name due to merger — O 22 and its Rules not applicable (Para 21)

(F) Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) O. 1, Rr. 2, 10 — Discretion of Court to strike out or add parties — Suit for recovery of damages was initially filed in name of right plaintiff and defendant companies — But names of both companies changed on account of merger — When there is doubt with regard to right name of plaintiff for determining real matter in dispute, Court may add any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff — Thus, Trial Court was within power to make necessary changes for effectively determining real matter in dispute (Para 22)

(G) Companies Act (1 of 1956) S. 394 — Responsibility of Transferee Company — All legal and other proceedings by or against Transferor Company, at time of merger, on appointed date and relating to said undertaking, its liabilities, obligations, duties and covenants shall be continued and enforced by or against Transferee Company (Para 23)