Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.RAVI, J
VIPIN VINCENT – Appellant
Versus
MANOJ THOMAS – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the case involves a petition against the rejection of a plea for amendment in a monetary suit. (Para 1) |
| 2. the petitioner argues a mistake in the pleading resulted in a need for amendment. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. the court allows the petition, setting aside the trial court's rejection. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The original petition has been filed against rejection of an application for amendment. The suit is one for money based on two invoices. Ext.P1 is the plaint. Even though in paragraph 1 of the plaint, the invoice numbers were typewritten as 44 and 372, it is seen that 44 has been manually corrected as 229. However, in the portion relating to the cause of action, it is stated specifically that the cause of action for the suit arose on 03.04.2014 and 30.04.2014 which are the dates relating to the invoice Nos.44 and 372. Ext.P2 is the written statement. In the written statement, the specific contention is that a sum of Rs.88,394/- was paid on 24.05.2014 and balance amounts were paid in cash. The written statement however does not specifically state any invoice numbers. Ext.P3 is the proof affidavit wherein the plaintiff has stated that amounts were due on invoice numbers 44 and
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
