cpc

Order 14 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure - Case Law


Court :
Delhi High Court

Brief :
The Court once again read the provisions, Order 14 Rule 1 and Order 14 Rule 5 under C.P.C. The court after referring the provisions stated that the court can amend issues at any stage of the suit which my be out of necessity to determine the controversy between the parties.

Citation :
Plaintiff: J H Jewelers Defendant: Umed Chindaliya

Bench:

Jayant Nath

Issue:

Whether the present suit is bad for mis-joinder or non-joinder of necessary parties ? 

Facts:

  • Plaintiff in this suit is a jewellery shop who has filed the case against the accountant of the shop.
  • The said accountant has opened an account with a bank who is listed as Defendant No.4 in this suit, the problem is that the accountant (Defendant No.1) has opened the account without complying with Know-Your-Customer (KYC) norms.
  • The account was deposited with 41 cheques dishonestly.
  • After going through the statements, it was confirmed that the defendant was misusing the Plaintiff's bank account with having access to it and used for his own benefits.

Plaintiff's Contentions:

Plaintiff contends that he could claim for recovery of the amount jointly and severally from all the defendants including the bank. The plaintiffs states that the issue no.7 was wrongly framed and that has to be reviewed.

Defendant's Contentions:

Defendant No.4, the Bank contends that there is no justification in adding them in the defendant list. They will not be responsible for any damage caused to the plaintiff in this suit. It was clearly stated that they cannot be made liable.

Judgment:

The Court once again read the provisions, Order 14 Rule 1 and Order 14 Rule 5 under C.P.C. The court after referring the provisions stated that the court can amend issues at any stage of the suit which my be out of necessity to determine the controversy between the parties.

“It may be that the plea raised by the plaintiff is not very well articulated, but it cannot be said that there are no allegations raised against defendant no.4 and no claim is sought against defendant no.4. A reading of the plaint would show that the case of the plaintiff is that the defendant no.4 has failed to carry out its duties on account of which, loss has been suffered by the plaintiff.

Accordingly, the application is allowed as above. IA 11682/2017 This application has become infructuous. The same is disposed of as having become infructuous.” said the Delhi High Court.

 

Enroll the Course on CPC by Mr. S.C Virmani:
Click Here

 

Karthi
on 15 September 2020
Published in Civil Law
Views : 123


 Recent Comments

Total: 0







×

Menu

IPC Grand Course     |    x