Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/14160/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14160 of 2010
=========================================================
GANGOTRI
DAIRY PRODUCTS PVT LTD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GAYATRI
DAIRY PRODUCTS PVT LTD - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
YJ TRIVEDI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
DR RAJESH H ACHARYA for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 21/01/2011
ORAL
ORDER
This
petition challenges order dated 23/03/2010 passed by the learned
Judge, Court No.8, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad on application Exh.21
in Civil Suit No.1154 of 2005 whereby the Court below has granted
application filed by respondent – plaintiff for amendment in
the plaint as well as injunction application.
2. Learned
Advocate for the petitioner has mainly contended that amendment
application as granted by the Court below changes the entire nature
of suit and therefore the composite suit is not maintainable under
the Act. He further contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff –
respondent is not maintainable in law as no cause of action has taken
place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court and in that
event the amendment application ought not to have been granted by the
Court below. He has placed reliance on the following decisions of the
Hon’ble Apex Court and submitted that the order of the Court below
allowing amendment application may be quashed and set aside as the
same would change the nature of suit.
AIR
2008 SC 3123 in case of Dabur India Ltd. Vs. K R Industries.
2006(1)
CPMR P1 (SC) in case of S K Maing with Patel Field Marshal
Industries And Others Vs. P.M. Diesel Ltd.
2010
(44) PTC 520 (Del.)(DB) in case of Archie Comic Publications Inc.
Vs. Purple Creations Pvt Ltd. & Ors.
2008
(36) PTC 558(Guj.) in case of Bhandari Products, A Proprietory
Concern Vs. Giriraj Enterprise.
3. Having
heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and having perused the
impugned order of the Court below is just and proper. The Court
below has rightly observed in paragraph No.6 and 7 that if the
amendment application is granted the nature of suit will not be
changed and it will be helpful in adjudicating the issue effectively.
It has been rightly held by the Court below that to avoid the
multiplicity of proceedings, the amendment can be allowed. I am in
complete agreement with the view taken by the Court below.
3.1 So
far as the decisions upon which the learned Advocate for the
petitioner has relied upon, it deserves to be noted that the
amendment application after the subsequent event has been made to
decide the suit effectively and to avoid the multiplicity of
proceedings. Hence, it is not necessary to discuss the cited
decisions in detail.
4. In
the premises above, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
It is however made clear that if an application is moved by the
petitioner to raise any contentions regarding the jurisdiction issue,
the Court below will hear and decide the same after hearing both the
sides in accordance with law.
(K
S JHAVERI, J.)
sompura
Top