WRIT PETITION No. 2787 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 4.12.2025 IN OS No. 1136/2024 PASSED BY THE COURT I ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MANGALURU DK ANNEXURE-H.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

ORAL ORDER

Heard Ms. Prasanna K., learned counsel appearing for Sri K. Chandranath Ariga, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri M.G. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The plaintiff in O.S. No.1136/2024, aggrieved by the order dated 04.12.2025 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mangaluru (for short, ‘the trial Court’), is before this Court.

3. The petitioner-plaintiff has instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, along with an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC'). In the plaint, defendant No.6 is described as Sri. Avil Vas. Defendant No.6 has also filed his written statement and affidavit describing himself as Sri. Avil Vas.

3.1 It is stated that, in the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, defendant No.6 was inadvertently described as Sri. Anil Vas instead of Sri. Avil Vas due to a typographical error. It is submitted that I.A. No.V was filed seeking correction of the said name in the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, and the same was allowed by order dated 19.09.2025.

3.2 Thereafter, an identical application was filed seeking correction of the name as Sri. Avil Vas instead of Sri. Anil Vas in the order passed on I.A. No.I under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 dated 02.05.2025. The said prayer, however, has been rejected by the impugned order.

4. Ms. Prasanna K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that defendant No.6 is described as Sri. Avil Vas in the plaint, and the written statement filed by defendant No.6 also describes his name as Sri. Avil Vas. It is submitted that, due to a typographical error, the name of defendant No.6 was mentioned as Sri. Anil Vas in the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. Upon noticing the said error, an application was filed seeking correction of the name of defendant No.6 as Sri. Avil Vas, and the same was allowed by order dated 19.09.2025.

4.1 Learned counsel further submits that when a similar application was filed seeking correction of the name of defendant No.6 in the order passed on the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, the same was erroneously rejected by the impugned order dated 02.05.2025. It is submitted that the impugned order is unsustainable in law.

5. Though notice has been served on the respondent, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the pleadings, this Court finds that in the plaint, the respondent herein is described as Sri. Avil Vas, and the written statement filed by defendant No.6 also describes as Sri. Avil Vas. In the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, defendant No.6 was inadvertently described incorrectly, and such error was permitted to be corrected by order dated 19.09.2025.

7 Since the said incorrect description in the application had also found place in the order passed on I.A. No.I under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 dated 02.05.2025, the petitioner filed an application seeking correction of the name of defendant No.6 in the said order. However, the same has been rejected by the impugned order dated 04.12.2025.

7.1 The reasons assigned for rejecting the application are without any basis. When defendant No.6 is consistently described as Sri. Avil Vas in the plaint as well as in the written statement filed by defendant No.6, and when the trial Court had al