Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 14169
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.SOMARAJAN, J
JALAL NAZAR – Appellant
Versus
HOJA NAZARUDEEN – Respondent
OP(C) 2937 2014
SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR, SUMESH CHAKKADATH SUBRAMANIAN C S
The court reaffirmed the principle that minor amendments in pleadings, especially for clerical errors, are permissible and do not change the substance of the claim.
Headnote:
Amendment - Civil Procedure - CPC Order 2 Rule 2 - The court allowed an amendment application to correct a mistake in the plaint regarding dates, emphasizing that it does not change the nature of the case and the opportunity for rectification should be granted.
Fact of the Case:
The trial court dismissed an amendment application to correct dates in the plaint. The defendants objected, claiming the dates were crucial to the cause of action, but the plaintiff maintained it was a simple clerical error.
Finding of the Court:
The court reasoned that the correction of dates in the plaint is a minor amendment that does not alter the suit's nature or relief sought. It concluded that the plaintiff should be allowed to rectify the error and the defendants could submit additional pleadings in response.
Issues: Whether the amendment of dates in the plaint constitutes a substantive change affecting the cause of action or the relief sought.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that an inadvertent mistake in the dates does not change the substantive nature of the suit, meriting the allowance of the amendment to serve the ends of justice.
Final Decision: The original petition is allowed, and the trial court's dismissal of the amendment application is set aside.
JUDGMENT
An amendment application for correcting the mistake crept in the dates mentioned in the plaint was dismissed by the trial court under Ext.P4. It is only a matter of correction of mistake crept in the plaint pleading regarding the respective dates made mentioned in the plaint. It will not alter the nature and character of suit or the relief sought in the plaint. The correction sought by the plaintiff was objected by the defendants in their written statement mainly on the reason that the cause of action stated is based on the abovesaid dates and defence was raised in relation to the said pleading. In fact, the “cause of action” stands for bundle of facts. Necessarily, if it is an inadvertent mistake crept in the plaint pleading, an opportunity shall be given to the plaintiff for rectifying the said mistake. The defendants may be permitted to raise their additional pleading by way of additional written statement. The decision relied on by the counsel for respondents in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & Anr [AIR 2022 SC 4256] will not render any assistance to the case advanced by the respondents, since it is pertaining to the question of enhancement of claim by way of amendment and the hit of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. Hence, the order of the trial court, Ext.P4, will stand set aside by allowing the amendment application.
The original petition is allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.No.303/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT ATTINGAL.
EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.No.851/2014 IN O.S.No.303 OF 2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, ATTINGAL.
EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN I.A.No.851/2014 IN O.S.No.303 OF
2010 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, ATTINGAL.
EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1/9/2014 IN I.A.
No.851/2014 IN O.S.No.303/2010 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, ATTINGAL.
EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXT.P1 SUIT.
EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS IN O.S.No.303/2010 ON THE FILES OF PRL. SUB COURT, ATTINGAL.
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE
