The plaintiff has appealed to this Court with special leave.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 9, 1964 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No.
An application to amend, the plaint, by substituting the names of the three members of the joint family for the name of the family firm as plaintiffs, was rejected by the Court 1 35 Bom.
C. Manchanda, S. k. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for the appellant.
Bishan Narain and Harbans Singh, for the respondent.
The Trial Judge decreed the claim for Rs.
In their case they still have to sue in their individual names.
257 of 1953.
L. R. 569.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The defendant then filed a supplementary written statement raising two additional companytentions 1 that Manohar Lal was number 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.
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 Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. On March 11, 1950, Manohar Lal s o Jai Jai Ram companymenced an action in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nanital, for a decree for Rs.
697 of 1966.
On July 18, 1952, the plaintiff applied for leave to amend the plaint.
The defendant by its written statement companytended that the plaintiff was an unregistered firm and on that account incompetent to sue.
