Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – O. VI, r.17 – Amendment of pleadings – Appellant-plaintiff as director of a company filed a suit for recovery of Rs.25,00,000/- – Thereafter, plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint on the ground that the counsel had inadvertently made the title of the suit wrongly as the loan was advanced through the Company, therefore, the suit was to be in the name of the Company – Trial Court declined the amendment – High Court affirmed the order of the trial court – On appeal, held: The plaint was not properly drafted in as much as in the memo of parties, the plaintiff was described as ‘VP’ through director of the Company though it should have been Company through its director ‘VP’ – It was inadvertent mistake on the part of the counsel who drafted the plaint – Such inadvertent mistake could not be refused to be corrected when mistake was apparent from the reading of the plaint – Therefore, the order declining to correct the memo of parties not justified in law – Consequently, orders passed by the trial Court and the High Court set aside. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The plaint is not properly drafted in as much as in the memo of parties, the Plaintiff is described as ‘VP’ through Director of SG Pvt. Ltd. though it should have been SG Pvt. Ltd. through its Director ‘VP’. Thus, it is a case of mistake of the counsel, may be on account of lack of understanding as to how a Private Limited Company is to sue in a suit for recovery of the amount advanced. [Para 8][131-B, C]
2. The memo of parties is thus clearly inadvertent mistake on the part of the counsel who drafted the plaint. Such inadvertent mistake cannot be refused to be corrected when the mistake is apparent from the reading of the plaint. The Rules of Procedure are handmaid of justice and cannot defeat the substantive rights of the parties. It is well settled that amendment in the pleadings cannot be refused merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the Rules of Procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleadings even if a party is negligent or careless as the power to grant amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitations. [Para 9] [131-C-E]
3. Thus, this Court finds that it was an inadvertent mistake in the plaint which trial court should have allowed to be corrected so as to permit the Private Limited Company to sue as Plaintiff as the original Plaintiff has filed suit as Director of the said Private Limited Company. Therefore, the order declining to correct the memo of parties cannot be said to be justified in law. [Para 11] [133-G,H]
State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Company Limited (2010) 4 SCC 518 : [2010] 4 SCR 46; Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and Another (2006) 1 SCC 75 : [2005] 5 Suppl.
SCR 157 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.