SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(SC) 228

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta, JJ.
Varun Pahwa – Appellant
Versus
Mrs. Renu Chaudhary – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2431 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P (C) No. 2792 of 2019)
Decided on : 01-03-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Avinash Kr. Lakhanpal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, Advocate and V. Elanchezhiyan, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Amendment application for correcting procedural and curable defects should be allowed.

Headnote:Administration of justice – Judicial propriety – Case title wrongly drafted by counsel of appellant – Instead of the company, its director the appellant made plaintiff – Application for amendment declined by courts below – Held, the defect being curable and procedural mistake, ought to be allowed. (Para 9, 11)

       (1969) 1 SCC 869; (2010) 4 SCC 518; (2006) 1 SCC 75 – Relied upon

       (1919-20) 47 IA 255; (1883) 32 WR 262 (CA) – Referred

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant as Director of Siddharth Garments Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 25,00,000/- along with pendente lite and future interest on or about 28.05.2016. The Plaintiff has claimed the said amount advanced as loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- remitted to the defendant through RTGS on 16.06.2013 on HDFC Bank, Delhi. Plaintiff has given Special Power of Attorney to Shri Navneet Gupta and that a copy of the Power of Attorney was enclosed.

       The defendant raised one of the preliminary objections in the written statement that suit has not been filed by the Plaintiff and even the alleged authorised representative has not filed any document showing that he has been authorised by the above-named Plaintiff. The Special Power of Attorney is neither valid nor admissible.

       Navneet Gupta appeared in Court as power of attorney of the Plaintiff to examine himself as PW1. An order was passed by the learned trial court to furnish address of the Plaintiff and why the Plaintiff should be examined through an attorney when the Plaintiff is a resident of Delhi. Thereafter the appellant 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.

       The trial court declined the amendment on the ground that the application is an attempt to convert the suit filed by a private individual into a suit filed by a Private Limited Company which is not permissible as it completely changes the nature of the suit. It is the said order which was not interfered with by the High Court.

       Finding of the Court:

       Amendment application for correcting procedural and curable defects should be allowed.

       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Hemant Gupta, J.

Leave granted.

2. The Order dated 20.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi is subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. By the aforesaid order, a petition against an order passed by the learned trial court on 23.01.2018 seeking permission to amend the plaint was dismissed.

3. The appellant as Director of Siddharth Garments Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 25,00,000/- along with pendente lite and future interest on or about 28.05.2016. The Plaintiff has claimed the said amount advanced as loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- remitted to the defendant through RTGS on 16.06.2013 on HDFC Bank, Delhi. It is also averred that Plaintiff has given Special Power of Attorney to Shri Navneet Gupta and that a copy of the Power of Attorney is enclosed.

4. The defendant raised one of the preliminary objections in the written statement that suit has not been filed by the Plaintiff and even the alleged authorised representative has not filed any document showing that he has been authorised by the above-named Plaintiff. The Special Power of Attorney is neither valid nor admissible.

5. It was on 29.11.2016, Navneet Gupta appeared in Court as power of attorney of the Plaintiff to examine himself as PW1. It was at that stage; an order was passed by the learned trial court to furnish address of the Plaintiff and why the Plaintiff should be examined through an attorney when the Plaintiff is a resident of Delhi. It is thereafter, the appellant 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. Therefore, the Plaintiff sought to substitute para 1 and para 2 of the plaint with the following paras which read as under:-

"1. That the Plaintiff is a Private Limited Company having its registered office at: I-VA (property bearing No. XII), Jawahar Nagar, Delhi

2. That the present plaint is filed through the authorised representative of the Plaintiff namely Sh. Navneet Gupta, R/o. 322, Kohat Enclave, Pitam Pura, Delhi who has been authorised vide board resolution dated 12.05.2016 to sign, verify and execute all documents, papers, complaints, applications, plaint, written statement, Counter claim, affidavits, replies revisions, etc. and to institute, pursue and depose in all legal proceedings and court cases on behalf of Siddharth Garments Pvt. Ltd against Mrs. Renu Chaudhary who was given the loan of Rs. 25 Lakhs."

6. The trial court declined the amendment on the ground that the application is an attempt to convert the suit filed by a private individual into a suit filed by a Private Limited Company which is not permissible as it completely changes the nature of the suit. It is the said order which was not interfered with by the High Court.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as none had appeared on behalf of the respondent.

8. The plaint is not properly drafted in as much as in the memo of parties, the Plaintiff is described as Varun Pahwa through Director of Siddharth Garments Pvt. Ltd. though it should have been Siddharth Garments Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Varun Pahwa. 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.

9. 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 car


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top