{"id":246179,"date":"1978-01-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1978-01-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-trading-co-vs-moji-ram-on-25-january-1978"},"modified":"2017-05-28T14:43:56","modified_gmt":"2017-05-28T09:13:56","slug":"ganesh-trading-co-vs-moji-ram-on-25-january-1978","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-trading-co-vs-moji-ram-on-25-january-1978","title":{"rendered":"Ganesh Trading Co vs Moji Ram on 25 January, 1978"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ganesh Trading Co vs Moji Ram on 25 January, 1978<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1978 AIR 484, \t\t 1978 SCR (2) 614<\/div>\n
Author: M H Beg<\/div>\n
Bench: Beg, M. Hameedullah (Cj)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nGANESH TRADING CO.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMOJI RAM\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT25\/01\/1978\n\nBENCH:\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH (CJ)\nBENCH:\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH (CJ)\nDESAI, D.A.\n\nCITATION:\n 1978 AIR  484\t\t  1978 SCR  (2) 614\n 1978 SCC  (2)\t 9\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1983 SC  43\t (5)\n RF\t    1983 SC 462\t (3)\n\n\nACT:\nCivil\tProcedure  Code,  Order\t 6  Rule  17--Amendment\t  of\npleadings,  when permissible--\"New cause of action\"  whether\nconstituted by statement of inadvertently omitted  essential\nfact.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellant-plaintiff firm had filed a suit through one of\nits  partners,\tfor  recovery of Rs. 68,000\/-  due  under  a\npromissory note.  After the written statement had been\tduly\nfiled,\tan amendment of the plaint was applied for,  on\t the\nground\tthat  the  plaintiff had  inadvertently\t omitted  to\nmention\t the essential fact that the firm had actually\tbeen\ndissolved  before  the institution of the suit.\t  The  Trial\nCourt, and the High Court, in revision, refused to allow the\namendment  on  the  ground  that  it  would  amount  to\t the\nintroduction of a new time barred cause of action.\nAllowing the appeal the Court,\nHELD  :\t In a suit instituted by one of the  partners  of  a\ndissolved  firm, the mere specification of the\tcapacity  in\nwhich  the suit was filed could not change the character  of\nthe  suit  or  the case.  Even where an\t essential  fact  is\nlacking\t from averments in the plaint, the cause  of  action\nwill be defective but this does not, by itself,\t necessarily\nconstitute  a new cause of action if the plaint is  amended.\n[619] F, 618 A]\nHowever\t negligent  or\tcareless may  have  been  the  first\nomission,  and\thowever\t late the  proposed  amendment,\t the\namendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice\nto  the other side subject to conditions such as payment  of\ncosts. [619 A-B]\nJai  Jai  Ram  Manohar Lal  v.\tNational  Building  Material\nSupply,\t Gurgaon,<\/a> 1970(1) S.C.R. 22-A.I.R. 1969\t S.C.  1267,\nfollowed.\nCharan\tDas  v. Amir Khan, 47 I.A. 2.55; L. J. Leach  &\t Co.\nLtd. v. Jardine Skinner & Co.,<\/a> 1957 S.C.R. 438, applied.\nMohan  Singh  v.  Kanshi Ram, 1976 C.L.J.  (Civil)  p.\t135,\nIppili\t Satyanarayana\tv.  The\t Amadalavalasa\t Cooperative\nAgricultural  and Industrial Society Ltd., A.I.R. 1975\tA.P.\n22,  Agarwal Jorawarmal & Anr. v. Karam & Anr.\t A.I.R.\t 19,\nNagpur\t31;  A.\t K.  Gupta & Sons  Ltd.\t v.  Damodar  Valley\nCorporation, A.I.R.<\/a> 1967 S.C. 96; and Purshottam Umedbhai  &\nCo. v. M\/s.  Manilal and Sons,<\/a> 1961 (1) S.C.R. 982; referred\nto.\nProcedural law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct\nthe  course of substantive justice.  Provisions relating  to\npleadings  in  civil cases are meant to give  to  each\tside\nintimation  of the case of the other so that it may be\tmet,\nto  enable  Courts  to determine what  is  really  at  issue\nbetween\t the  parties,\tand to prevent\tdeviation  from\t the\ncourse which litigation on particular causes Must take. [615\nB-C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1338  of
\n1977.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby Special Leave from the Judgment and\tOrder  dated
\n20th  April,  1977 of the Punjab and Haryana High  Court  in
\nCivil Revision No. 508 of 1975.\n<\/p>\n
V. M. Tarkunde and O. P. Verma or the Appellant.
\nM.B. Lal for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
615<\/span><\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n BEG,  C.J.  This  appeal by special  leave  indicates\thow,
\ndespite the settled practice of this Court not to interfere,
\nas  a general rule, with orders of an interlocutory  nature,
\nsuch as one on an application for the amendment of a plaint,
\nthis  Court  feels compelled, in order\tto  promote  uniform
\nstandards   and\t views\ton  questions  basic  for  a   sound
\nadministration\tof  justice, and, in order to  prevent\tvery
\nobvious\t failures  of justice, to interfere even in  such  a
\nmatter in a very exceptional case such as the one now before
\nus seems to us to be.\n<\/p>\n
Procedural law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct
\nthe  course of substantive justice.  Provisions relating  to
\npleading  in  civil  cases are meant to give  to  each\tside
\nintimation  of the case of the other so that it may be\tmet,
\nto  enable  Courts  to determine what  is  really  at  issue
\nbetween\t parties, and to prevent deviations from the  course
\nwhich litigation on particular causes of action must take.
\nOrder 6, rule 2 Civil Procedure Code says:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Every  pleading\tshall contain,\tand  contain
\n\t      only  a  statement in a concise  form  of\t the
\n\t      material\tfacts  on which the  party  pleading
\n\t      relies  for his claim or defence, as the\tcase
\n\t      may  be, but not the, evidence by\t which\tthey
\n\t      are  to be proved, and shall, when  necessary,
\n\t      be    divided   into   paragraphs,    numbered
\n\t      consecutively.  Dates, sums and numbers  shall
\n\t      be expressed in figures”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Order 6, rule 4 indicates cases in which particulars of its
\npleading  must be set out by a party.  And, order 6, rule  6
\nrequires  only\tsuch conditions precedent to  be  distinctly
\nspecified  in a pleading as a party wants to put  in  issue.
\nOrder  6,  rule\t 5 provides for\t such  “further\t and  better
\nstatement of the nature of the claim or defence, or  further
\nand   better  particulars  of  any  matter  stated  in\t any
\npleading…… as the Court may order, and “upon such terms,
\nas ‘to costs and otherwise, as may be just”.  Order 6,\trule
\n7,  contains a prohibition against departure of\t proof\tfrom
\nthe  pleadings\texcept\tby way of  amendment  of  pleadings.
\nAfter some provisions relating to special cases and  circum-
\nstances,  and for signing, verification and striking out  of
\npleadings, comes order 6, rule 17 which reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The Court may at any stage of the proceedings
\n\t      allow  either  party  to alter  or  amend\t his
\n\t      pleadings in such manner and on such terms  as
\n\t      may be just, and all such amendments shall  be
\n\t      made  as may be necessary for the\t purpose  of
\n\t      determining the real questions in\t controversy
\n\t      between the parties”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is clear from the foregoing summary of the main rules  of
\npleadings  that provisions for the amendment  of  pleadings,
\nsubject to such terms as to costs and giving of all  parties
\nconcerned  necessary opportunities to meet exact  situations
\nresulting  from amendments, are intended for  promoting\t the
\nends of justice and not for defeating them.  Even if a party
\nor  its\t counsel  is inefficient in  setting  out  its\tcase
\ninitially the shortcoming can certainly be removed generally
\nby  appropriate steps taken by a party which must  no  doubt
\npay costs for the inconvenience
\n616<\/span>
\nor expense caused to the other side from its omissions.\t The
\nerror  is  not\tincapable  of being  rectified\tso  long  as
\nremedial steps do not unjustifiably injure rights accrued.
\nIt is true that, if a plaintiff seeks to alter the cause  of
\naction\titself\tand  to\t introduce  indirectly,\t through  an
\namendment of his pleadings, an entirely new or\tinconsistent
\ncause of action, amounting virtually to the substitution  of
\na  new plaint or a new cause of action in place of what\t was
\noriginally  there, the Court will refuse to permit it if  it
\namounts\t to  depriving\tthe party against which\t a  suit  is
\npending\t of any right which may have accrued in\t its  favour
\ndue to lapse of time.  But, mere failure to set out even  an
\nessential  fact does not, by itself, constitute a new  cause
\nof  action.  A cause of action is constituted by  the  whole
\nbundle\tof  essential facts which the plaintiff\t must  prove
\nbefore he can succeed in his suit.  It must be antecedent to
\nthe  institution  of  the suit.\t If any\t essential  fact  is
\nlacking\t from  averments in the plaint the cause  of  action
\nwill  be defective.  In that case, an attempt to supply\t the
\nomission   has\tbeen  and  could  sometimes  be\t viewed\t  as
\nequivalent  to\tan  introduction of a new  cause  of  action
\nwhich, cured’ of its short-comings, has really become a good
\ncause  of action.  This, however, is not the  only  possible
\ninterpretation\tto  be\tput  on\t every\tdefective  state  of
\npleadings.  Defective pleadings are generally curable if the
\ncause  of action sought to be brought out was not ab  initio
\ncompletely  absent.   Even very defective pleadings  may  be
\npermitted to be cured. so as to constitute a cause of action
\nwhere there was none, provided necessary conditions, such as
\npayment\t of either any additional court fees, which  may  be
\npayable, or, of costs of the other side are complied  with.
\nIt is only if lapse of time has barred the remedy on a newly
\nconstituted  cause of action that the Courts  should,  ordi-
\nnarily, refuse prayers for amendment of pleadings.
\nIn the case before us, the appellant-plaintiff M\/s.   Ganesh
\nTrading\t Co.  ‘ Karnal, had filed a suit “through  Shri\t Jai
\nParkash”,  a  partner of that firm, based  on  a  promissory
\nnote, dated 25th August 1970, for recovery of Rs.  68,000\/-.
\nThe  non-payment of money due under the promissory note\t was
\nthe  real  basis.  The suit was filed on 24th  August  1973,
\njust  before the expiry of the period of limitation for\t the
\nclaim  for payment.  The written statement was filed on\t 5th
\nJune  1974, denying the assertions made in the\tplaint.\t  It
\nwas also asserted that the suit was incompetent for want  of
\nregistration of the firm and was struck by the provisions of
\nsection 69 of the Indian Partnership Act.\n<\/p>\n
On  31st  August  1974, the  plaintiff\tfiled  an  amendment
\napplication  wherein  it was stated that the  plaintiff\t had
\n“inadvertently\tomitted\t certain material  facts  which\t are
\nnecessary  to incorporate in the plaint so as to enable\t the
\nHon’ble Court to consider and decide the subject matter\t of.
\nthe  suit in its true perspective and which it is  necessary
\nto  do in order to meet ends of justice”.  It  was  exmained
\nthere  that the omission consisted of a failure\t to  mention
\nthat the plaintiff firm, Ganesh Trading Co. Karnal, had been
\nactually  dissolved on 15th July 1973, on which date a\tdeed
\nof dissolution of the firm was executed.\n<\/p>\n
617<\/span><\/p>\n
The  Trial Court had refused to allow the amendment  by\t its
\norder  dated 8th April 1975, on the ground that it  amounted
\nto the introduction of a new cause of action.
\nOn  a Revision application before the High Court,  the\tHigh
\nCourt observed :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  suit originally instituted was filed  on
\n\t      behalf  of a firm through one of the  partners
\n\t      in  the amendment prayed for, a new  claim  is
\n\t      being  sought to be laid on the basis  or\t new
\n\t      facts”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It examined the new averments relating to the shares of\t the
\npartners and the execution of the deed of dissolution of the
\nfirm on 15th July 1973.\t It then said :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It  is on the basis of these  averments\tthat
\n\t      title of the suit is sought to be changed from
\n\t      M\/s.  Ganesh Trading Company, Karnal,  through
\n\t      Shri  Jai\t Parkash  son  of  Shri\t Hari\tRam,
\n\t      resident of Railway Road, Karnal, to dissolved
\n\t      firm,  through  Shri Jai Parkash son  of\tShri
\n\t      Hari Ram, resident of Railway Road, Kamal, ex-
\n\t      partner  of  the said firm. it would  be\tseen
\n\t      that the change in the heading of the suit  is
\n\t      not being sought merely on the ground of\tmis-
\n\t      description   or\t there\t being\t no   proper
\n\t      description, the cause of action remaining the
\n\t      same, but on the other hand, the change in the
\n\t      heading  of the plaint has been sought on\t the
\n\t      basis of the new facts prayed to be allowed to
\n\t      be averred in the amendment plaint, for  which
\n\t      new   basis  has\tbeen  given   alleging\t the
\n\t      dissolution  of  the  partnership\t on  a\tdate
\n\t      before the suit was filed in the Court”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
We  are\t unable to share the view taken by the\tHigh  Court.
\nThe  High  Court had relied on A. K. Gupta &  Sons  Ltd.  v.
\nDamodar\t Valley Corporation.<\/a>(1) In that case  the  plaintiff
\nhad sought a declaration of his rights under the terms of  a
\ncontract.   The\t suit  was  decreed.   But,  as\t the   first
\nappellate  Court had reversed the decree on the ground\tthat
\nsection 42 of the Specific Relief Act barred the grant of  a
\nmere  declaratory decree in such a case, the appellant\thad
\nsought\tleave,\tby filing an amendment\tapplication  in\t its
\nsecond appeal before the High Court seeking to add a  relief
\nto recover such monies as may be found due to him on  proper
\naccounting.  By a majority, the view expressed by this Court
\nwas that the amendment should be allowed although the  Court
\naffirmed the principle that, as a rule, a party should not
\nbe allowed, by means of an amendment, to set up a new  cause
\nof action particularly when a suit on the new case or  cause
\nof action is barred by time.\n<\/p>\n
On that occasion, this Court had also referred to Charan Das
\nv.  Amir  Khan),  and, L. J. Leach &  Co.  Ltd.\t v.  Jardine
\nSkinner\t & Co.<\/a>(3), to hold that “a different  or  additional
\napproach to the same
\n(1)  A.T.R. 1967 S.C. 96.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  47 Ind.  App. 255.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  [1957] S.C.R. 438.\n<\/p>\n
618<\/span><\/p>\n
facts”\tcould be allowed by amendment even after the  expiry
\nof  the statutory period of limitation.\t It had pointed\t out
\nthat  the  object  of rules of procedure is  to\t decide\t the
\nrights\tof  the\t parties and not to punish  them  for  their
\nmistakes  or shortcoming.  It also said that no question  of
\nlimitation,  strictly speaking, arose in such cases  because
\nwhat was sought to be brought in was merely a  clarification
\nof what was already there.  It said (at p. 98) :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  expression\t’cause\tof  action’  in\t the
\n\t      present  context\tdoes not  mean\t‘every\tfact
\n\t      which  it is material to be proved to  entitle
\n\t      the plaintiff to succeed’ as was said in
\n\t      Cooke  v.\t Gill (1873) 8 CP 107  (116),  in  a
\n\t      different\t context,  for\tif it  were  so,  no
\n\t      material\tfact could ever be amended or  added
\n\t      and, of course, no one would want to change or
\n\t      add  an.immaterial  allegation  by  amendment.
\n\t      That  expression for the present purpose\tonly
\n\t      means,  a\t new  claim  made  on  a  new  basis
\n\t      constituted  by  new facts.  Such a  view\t was
\n\t      taken   in   Robinson   v.   Unicos   Property
\n\t      Corporation  Ltd.,  1962-2 All ER 24,  and  it
\n\t      seems  to as to be the only possible  view  to
\n\t      take.   Any  other view would  make  the\trule
\n\t      futile.\tThe  words  ‘new  case’\t have\tbeen
\n\t      understood to mean ‘new set of ideas’ : Dornan
\n\t      v.  J. M. Sillis and Co. Ltd., 1962-1 All\t ER\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      303.  This also means to us to be a reasonable
\n\t      view to take.  No amendment will be allowed to
\n\t      Introduce a new set of ideas to the  prejudice
\n\t      of any right acquired by any party by lapse of
\n\t      time”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The High Court had also referred to Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal,
\nv. National Building Material Supply.  Gurgaon<\/a> (1), but has
\nfailed\tto follow the principle which was clearly laid\tdown
\nin  that  case\tby this Court.\t There,\t the  plaintiff\t had
\ninstituted  a  suit in the name of Jai Jai Ram\tManohar\t Lal
\nwhich  was  the\t name in which the business of\ta  firm\t was
\ncarried\t on.  Later on, the plaintiff had applied  to  amend
\nthe  plaint,  so that the description may  be  altered\tinto
\n“Manohar  Lal  Proprietor  Jai Jai Ram\tManohar\t Lal”.\t The
\nplaintiff  also sought to clarify paragraph 1 of the  plaint
\nso that it may be evident that “Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal” was
\nonly  the firm’s name.\tThe defendant pleaded  that  Manohar
\nLal  was not the sole Proprietor. One of the  objections  of
\nthe defendant in that case was that the suit by Manobar\t Lal
\nas  sole owner would be time barred on 18th July 1952,\twhen
\nthe   amendment\t was  sought.\tIn  that  case,\t  the\tHigh
\nCourt  had  taken the hypertechnical view that Jai  Jai\t Ram
\nManohar\t Lal  beinag a nonexisting person” the\tTrial  Court
\ncould not allow an amendment which converted a\tnon-existing
\nperson\tinto a “person” in the eye of law so that  the\tsuit
\nmay not be barred by time.  This Court while reversing\tthis
\nhypertechnical view observed ( at p. 1269) :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Rules  of  procedure  are intended  to  be  a
\n\t      handmaid to the administration of justice.   A
\n\t      party  cannot  be refused just  relief  merely
\n\t      because  of  some\t mistake,  negligence,\t in-
\n\t      advertence or even infraction of the rules  of
\n\t      procedure.   The Court always gives  leave  to
\n\t      amend the pleading of a party, un-
\n\t      (1)   A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 1267.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      619<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      less  it is satisfied that the party  applying
\n\t      was acting mala fide, or that by his  blunder,
\n\t      he had caused injury to his opponent which may
\n\t      not  be  recompensed  by an  order  of  costs.
\n\t      However,\tnegligent or careless may have\tbeen
\n\t      the  first  omission, and, however,  late\t the
\n\t      proposed\tamendment,  the\t amendment  may\t  be
\n\t      allowed if it can be made without injustice to
\n\t      the other side.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Purushottam Umedbhai & Co. v. M\/s.  Manilal & Sons<\/a>(1), was a
\ncase of a partnership firm where this Court pointed out that
\nSection 4 of the Partnership Act uses the term “firm” or the
\n“firm name” as a compendious description of all the partners
\ncollectively”.\tSpeaking of the provisions of Order 30 Civil
\nProcedure Code this Court said there (at p. 991)
\n\t      “The  introduction  of this provision  in\t the
\n\t      Code  was\t an  enabling  one  which  permitted
\n\t      partners constituting a firm to sue or be sued
\n\t      in  the  name  of\t the  firm.   This  enabling
\n\t      provision, however, accorded no such  facility
\n\t      or  privilege to partners constituting a\tfirm
\n\t      doing  business outside India.  The  existence
\n\t      of  the provisions of O. XXX in the Code\tdoes
\n\t      not mean that a plaint filed in the name of  a
\n\t      firm  doing  business outside India is  not  a
\n\t      suit  in\tfact by the partners  of  that\tfirm
\n\t      individually”.\n<\/p>\n
We  think that the view expressed by Narula C.J.,  in  Mohan
\nSingh  v.  Kanshi Ram(2), which was dissented  from  by\t the
\nDivision Bench of the High Court is correct.  In that  case,
\nthe  learned Judge had rightly followed the principles\tlaid
\ndown  by this Court in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal\t(supra)\t and
\nhad also agreed with the view taken in Ippili  Satyanarayana
\nv. The Amadalavalasa Cooperative Agricultural and Industrial
\nSociety\t Ltd.(3), where it held that the defendant  was\t not
\nprejudiced by the amendment of the description at all.
\nIn the case before us also, the suit having been  instituted
\nby  one\t of  the  partners of  a  dissolved  firm  the\tmere
\nspecification  of the capacity in which the suit  was  filed
\ncould not change the character of the suit or the case.\t  It
\nmade  no difference to the rest of the pleadings or  to\t the
\ncause of action.  Indeed, the amendment only sought to\tgive
\nnotice to the defendant of facts which the plaintiff’ would
\nand could have tried to prove in any case.  This notice\t was
\nbeing  given, out of abundant caution, so that no  technical
\nobjection may be taken that what was sought to be proved was
\noutside the pleadings.\n<\/p>\n
We  also agree with the view taken by the Nagpur High  Court
\nin   Agarwal  Jorawamal\t & Anr. v. Kasam  &  Anr.(4),  where
\nVivian Bose, J., said (at p. 315)
\n(1)  [1961] (1) S. C. R. 982.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  1976 C.L.J. (Civil) 135.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  A.T.R. 1975 A.P. 22.\n<\/p>\n
(4) A.I.R. 19 Nagpur 315.\n<\/p>\n
620<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      “It is argued on behalf of the defendants that
\n\t      O.  30, R.I. Civil P.C. indicates that a\tsuit
\n\t      can  be filed in the name of the firm by\tsome
\n\t      of  the, partners only if the  partnership  is
\n\t      existing\tat  the date of the, filing  of\t the
\n\t      suit.   The argument has no force in  view  of
\n\t      the finding that the firm was not dissolved by
\n\t      reason of. the insolvency of one of its  part-
\n\t      ners.  But even if it has been dissolved,\t the
\n\t      effect  of- dissolution is not to\t render\t the
\n\t      firm non-existent.  It continues to exist\t for
\n\t      all  purposes  necessary for its\twinding\t up.
\n\t      One  of  these is of course  the\trecovery  of
\n\t      moneys due to it by suit or otherwise”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
We think that the amendment sought does not alter the  cause
\nof action.  It only brings out correctly the capacity of the
\nplaintiff  suing.   It does not change the identity  of\t the
\nplaintiff who remains the same.\n<\/p>\n
The  result is that we allow this appeal and set  aside\t the
\norders of the High Court and the Trial Court.  We allow\t the
\namendment  application and send back the case to  the  Trial
\nCourt.\t We direct that the Trial Court will now permit\t the
\ndefendant  to file such further objections, if any,  as\t the
\ndefendant may wish to file within 14 days of the receipt  of
\nthe  record  by the Trial Court.  It will  then\t proceed  to
\ndecide the case in accordance with law.\t Costs to abide\t the
\nresults of the litigation.\n<\/p>\n
M.R.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal allowed.\n621<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ganesh Trading Co vs Moji Ram on 25 January, 1978 Equivalent citations: 1978 AIR 484, 1978 SCR (2) 614 Author: M H Beg Bench: Beg, M. Hameedullah (Cj) PETITIONER: GANESH TRADING CO. Vs. RESPONDENT: MOJI RAM DATE OF JUDGMENT25\/01\/1978 BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH (CJ) BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH (CJ) DESAI, D.A. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-246179","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGanesh Trading Co vs Moji Ram on 25 January, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-trading-co-vs-moji-ram-on-25-january-1978\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ganesh Trading Co vs Moji Ram on 25 January, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-trading-co-vs-moji-ram-on-25-january-1978\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1978-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-28T09:13:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganesh-trading-co-vs-moji-ram-on-25-january-1978#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganesh-trading-co-vs-moji-ram-on-25-january-1978\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ganesh Trading Co vs Moji Ram on 25 January, 1978\",\"datePublished\":\"1978-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-28T09:13:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganesh-trading-co-vs-moji-ram-on-25-january-1978\"},\"wordCount\":2924,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganesh-trading-co-vs-moji-ram-on-25-january-1978#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganesh-trading-co-vs-moji-ram-on-25-january-1978\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganesh-trading-co-vs-moji-ram-on-25-january-1978\",\"name\":\"Ganesh Trading Co vs Moji Ram on 25 January, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1978-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-28T09:13:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganesh-trading-co-vs-moji-ram-on-25-january-1978#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganesh-trading-co-vs-moji-ram-on-25-january-1978\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganesh-trading-co-vs-moji-ram-on-25-january-1978#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ganesh Trading Co vs Moji Ram on 25 January, 1978\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ganesh Trading Co vs Moji Ram on 25 January, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-trading-co-vs-moji-ram-on-25-january-1978","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ganesh Trading Co vs Moji Ram on 25 January, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-trading-co-vs-moji-ram-on-25-january-1978","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1978-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-28T09:13:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-trading-co-vs-moji-ram-on-25-january-1978#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-trading-co-vs-moji-ram-on-25-january-1978"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ganesh Trading Co vs Moji Ram on 25 January, 1978","datePublished":"1978-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-28T09:13:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-trading-co-vs-moji-ram-on-25-january-1978"},"wordCount":2924,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-trading-co-vs-moji-ram-on-25-january-1978#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-trading-co-vs-moji-ram-on-25-january-1978","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-trading-co-vs-moji-ram-on-25-january-1978","name":"Ganesh Trading Co vs Moji Ram on 25 January, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1978-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-28T09:13:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-trading-co-vs-moji-ram-on-25-january-1978#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-trading-co-vs-moji-ram-on-25-january-1978"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-trading-co-vs-moji-ram-on-25-january-1978#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ganesh Trading Co vs Moji Ram on 25 January, 1978"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246179","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=246179"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246179\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=246179"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=246179"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=246179"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}