The liberal approach to allowing amendments to the plaint before the commencement of the trial, as long as the amendments do not substantially change the nature and character of the suit.

Exhibit-P5 order allowing an application for amendment of the plaint is under challenge in this original petition.

2. The petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.777 of 2021 on the files of the 1st Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam (for short, 'the trial court').

3. The suit is one for realization of money. Ext.P1 is the original plaint. The plaintiff is a proprietory concern engaged in the hardware business. The 1st defendant also is the proprietory concern. The 1st defendant used to purchase goods from the plaintiff on credit basis. It is alleged that an amount of Rs.6,60,946/- is due from the 1st defendant to the plaintiff towards the balance payment of goods purchased on credit by the 1st defendant. The suit has been instituted to realize the said sum.

4. The defendants entered appearance and filed written - : 3 :-

statement disputing the payment. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed Ext.P3 application to amend the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short, the 'CPC'). The defendants filed Ext.P4 counter statement. The trial court, after hearing both sides, allowed Ext.P3, as per Ext.p5 order. It is challenging the said order, this original petition has been filed.

5. I have heard Sri.T.A.Rajan, the learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the amendment would alter the nature and character of the suit.

It is also submitted that based on the pleadings in the amended plaint, the suit is barred by limitation and hence, the trial court went wrong in allowing the amendment application. I cannot subscribe to the said submission. The amendment application filed before the commencement of the trial has to be considered liberally. Going by Ext.P3 application, the plaintiff wanted to make amendment in paragraph 1 of the plaint as well as to - : 4 :-

delete paragraphs 3 to 6 and add new paragraphs in their place.

Ext.P1 would show that in the cause title, the plaintiff proprietorship concern is represented by its proprietor Mr.Roy Paul. But in paragraph 1 of the plaint, it is pleaded that the plaintiff proprietorship concern is represented by its authorised representative/manager Mr.Roy Paul. The plaintiff wants to make amendment, deleting the words “its authorised representative/manager” and substitute the word “its proprietor”. The said amendment sought is in tune with the cause title of the plaint. Even though the plaintiff wanted to delete paragraphs 3 to 6 and add new paragraphs in their place, going by the proposed amendment, there is no substantial change in the plaint allegation. The definite case of the plaintiff is that a sum of Rs.6,60,946/- is due from the defendants towards the balance payment for the goods purchased on credit by the 1st defendant. Now, in the amended portion, the plaintiff wants to add interest. By way of amendment, no new claim has been - : 5 :-

made. Whether the suit is barred by limitation or not is a matter of evidence. Hence, the trial court was justified in allowing the amendment application. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed.