Court allows plaintiff to amend complaint to pierce corporate veil, holding Defendants 2 and 3 personally liable. Defendant 1 proceeded ex parte. Defendant 2's deletion request denied. Decision doesn't affect case merits.

The court allowed the plaintiff to amend the plaint to include the lifting of the corporate veil to hold Defendants No. 2 and 3 personally liable. Defendant No. 1 was proceeded ex parte. Defendant No. 2's application for deletion of his name was dismissed as the plaintiff's amendment was allowed. The court emphasized that its decision did not impact the merits of the case, which would be determined during trial.

---

---

Issues involved: Amendment of plaint to include lifting of corporate veil for personal liability of Defendants No. 2 and 3, deletion of Defendant No. 2's name from the suit.

Amendment Application by Plaintiff:
The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to include the lifting of the corporate veil to hold Defendants No. 2 and 3 personally liable for the claim in the suit. The amendment also aimed to correct a typographical error in the description of Defendants. The original suit already contained specific allegations against the directors, particularly Defendant No. 2 and Defendant No. 3, seeking their personal liability. The concept of corporate veil can be invoked in cases of fraud, misrepresentation, and diversion of funds, as established in legal precedents. The amendment was considered elaborative and necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties without prejudicing them.

Defendants' Responses:
Defendant No. 3 denied diverting any funds for personal use or committing fraud, also denying the need to lift any veil. Defendant No. 2 argued that since he ceased to be a director of Defendant No. 1 company, there was no privity of contract with the plaintiff, thus no personal liability. The plaintiff's application for amendment was supported by legal principles allowing alterations in pleadings at any stage of proceedings in the interests of justice, emphasizing a liberal approach to amendments to avoid unnecessary litigation.

Court's Decision:
The court allowed the plaintiff to amend the plaint to include the plea of lifting the corporate veil, noting that it would not change the nature of the case or cause of action but was necessary to address contradictory stands taken by Defendants No. 2 and 3. Defendant No. 1 was proceeded ex parte due to non-appearance. The application by Defendant No. 2 for deletion of his name was dismissed as infructuous in light of the plaintiff's amendment being allowed. The court clarified that its observations would not affect the merits of the controversy, which would be examined during the trial proceedings.

---