JUDGMENT :

K.N. Phaneendra, J.

Notice to be issued to respondent Nos.4 and 5 is dispensed with, as they remained ex-parte before the Senior Civil Judge in Civil Misc. Appeal No.7/2008 and not contested the application filed by the plaintiffs under sections 152 and 153 of CPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 3. Respondent No.2 though served with notice remained absent. The counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3 has no objection to allow the petition.

3. The petitioner has filed this petition calling in question the order passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No.7/2008, dated 02.06.2014 filed under section 152 and 153 of CPC. It was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 02.06.2014. It appears after passing of the decree in O.S.No.129/1994, the plaintiffs/petitioners herein have filed an application in the FDP petition in Civil Misc. Application No.7/2008. During the FDP proceedings, the plaintiff found some clerical mistakes in the judgment and decree and also in the plaint in O.S.No.129/1994. Therefore, they have filed Civil Misc. Application in No.7/2008 and the decree holders have sought for adjourning the FDP till the final disposal of that Miscellaneous Application.

4. In the said Miscellaneous Application, the petitioners herein have sought for amendment to the plaint by way of correction in the name of some parties and also correction of wrongly typed property numbers, etc., There is no need for this Court to go in detail with regard to the said application filed. The trial Court has dismissed the said application filed under section 152 and 153 of CPC, mainly on the ground that section 152 and 153 of CPC are not applicable so as to amend the plaint and the cause title in the plaint and also property numbers in the body of the plaint. Only on the technical ground, the said application filed under section 152 and 153 of CPC has been dismissed. The trial Court made an observation that section 152 and 153 of CPC are not applicable because those provisions can only be used for correcting the clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees, orders or any proceedings of the Court. However, the trial Court has not passed any orders on merits of the said application.

5. In this context, it is worth to refer here a decision of the Apex Court reported in between Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal vs. National Building Material, (1969) AIR SC 1267 Supply wherein the Apex Court has observed that:

"Section 153 read with Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 30 Rule 1 of CPC Amendment of plaint - Discretion of Court - Not to be refused on technical grounds. It was observed by the Apex Court that, the application could not be refused on the ground that there was no averment therein that the misdescription was on account of a bona fide mistake, and on that account the suit must fail. There is no rule that unless in an application for amendment of the plaint, it is expressly averred that the error, omission or misdescription is due to bona fide mistake, the Court has no power to grant leave to amend the plaint. 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."

6. In another ruling of the Apex Court reported in between Purushotam Umedbhai and Company Vs. Manilal and Sons, (1961) AIR SC 325 where the Apex Court specifically dealt with section 153 of CPC and held that:

"The suit was filed in the name of the partners doing business outside India - It is only misdescription of plaintiff - Plaint can be amended by substituting partners' names under section 153 - Order 6 Rule 17 have no application under section 153 of CPC. The Court held that the said amendment can be allowed under section 153 even after disposal of the case."

7. In view of the above said ruling of the Apex Court and also the principle that the rules or procedure are only intended to be handy to the administration of justice, infact, the amen