HARI NATH TILHARI, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Mr O. Mahesh, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner.

( 2 ) THIS revisidn petition arises from the judgment and order dated 31. 5. 1994 passed by Sri. Basavaraj Patil, Civil Judge, Hassan. on an application for amendment or correction in the cause-title of the plaint. In the plaint, there was a wrong description of the defendant no. 1. The suit was filed against Kamadhenu credit Corporation. But, according to the plaintiff, it was typed as Kamadhenu financier and Traders. Plaintiff moved an application for correction and amendment in the cause-title and also asserted that this mistake has crept in the description of the defendant no. 1 on account of bonafide mistake and inadvertence. Therefore, he may be allowed to correct the description of defendant No. 1 as Kamadhenu Credit Corporation instead of Kamadhenu Financier and Traders. The defendant objected the application on the ground that it amounts to changing the nature of the case. The Court below considered the affidavit and the circumstances of the case, and opined that a complete determination of the real question in controversy was necessary. It further opined that, the misdescription of defendant no. 1 that has been caused on account of bonafide mistake and inadvertance should be allowed to be corrected. It observed that there appears sufficient force in the contention of the plaintiff that mistake in describing the first defendant is due to inadvertance and it further pointed out that except for defendants 4 and 6, other defendants were also the partners of the Credit Corporation. The Court, therefore, opined that the amendment and correction was necessary for determination of real question in controversy and it would be a fit case wherein plaintiff be allowed to correct the description of defendant No. 1 as Kamadhenu Credit Corporation instead of putting it as Kamadhenu financiers and Traders. Feeling aggrieved from that order, the defendant has come up in revision before this Court.

( 3 ) MR. O. Mahesh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that this application for amendment was moved after almost three and 1/2 years from the date of institution of suit. He contended that this is a suit for recovery of money, therefore, amendment should not be allowed as the amendment was much delayed.

( 4 ) THE contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner have been hotly contested on behalf of the respondent by Mr. S. Raiu, an advocate of this Court, holding brief for Mr. K. L. Manjunath. Learned Counsel for the respondent contended that it is only a clercial error or the bonafide mistake that had crept in description of defendant, the name of which could be permitted to be corrected under Order vi Rule 17 as well as provisions of Sec'. 153 of CPC. Learned Counsel contended that the Court below has found that there is sufficient force in the contention of the plaintiff that mistake occurred was due to inadvertance. Learned Counsel contended that there is no question of any jurisdictional error having been committed, coming either under Clauses (a), (b) or (c), and secondly in the interest of justice and for fair trial and determination of question involved in the suit finally, the amendment was necessary and as such the Court below did not commit any error in allowing the amendment.

( 5 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. We have to take note of the basic principles of law, in the light of Article 39a of the constitution as well, that procedural laws are intended to facilitate and not to obstruct the course of substantive justice. The procedures relating to pleadings are meant to clearly bring to the knowledge and notice of both the parties the respective case of each side and stands of each other and with the object that the Court may be able to finally determine what is really in dispute between the parties and to prevent multiplicity of legal proceeding, delay and the ab

Click Here to Read the rest of this document