Amendment of pleadings is permissible to correct inadvertent mistakes to resolve the real controversy between parties, even if the amendment raises issues of limitation.

JUDGMENT This petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for setting aside the order passed by the Principal Munsiff’s Court, Kochi, for having dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure , for seeking amendment.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner being the plaintiff filed a suit for realisation of money as against the defendant for Rs.7,00,000/- with 8% interest per annum. The plaintiff has instructed his counsel to file the suit, but while filing the suit the counsel did some mistakes in the pleading. As the plaintiff has paid Rs.2,00,000/- by way of RTGS through bank and another one lakh was given in cash on 29.06.2018. Rs.4,00,000/- on 30.06.2018 thus totaling to Rs.7,00,000/-. Subsequently, the defendant has repaid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- on 19.07.2018. Thereafter, on 30.07.2018, once again the plaintiff once again has paid Rs.4,00,000/- to the defendant by way of cheque which was encashed by the defendant. Thereafter, the defendant did not repay the amount. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit.

4. The defendant appeared and filed a written statement taking the defence for having received Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff and repaid Rs.6,00,000/- to the plaintiff on two different dates. But, later the plaintiff realised that there is a mistake occurred in the plaint, wherein the plaintiff counsel has not mentioned Rs.4,00,000/- paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on 30.07.2018. As also, there was mistake in the date as the defendant though received Rs.4,00,000/- on 30.07.2018, but he has mentioned in the promissory note with antedate 30.06.2018. The same was not narrated by the plaintiff counsel in the plaint. Therefore, the plaintiff wants to amend the pleadings. Hence, he has filed an application seeking amendment which came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a mistake of the plaintiff counsel cannot be a ground for rejection of the application. Even if the amendment is allowed, no prejudice will be caused to defendant’s case. Furthermore, the plaintiff has already produced a bank statement substantiating the payment of Rs.4,00,000/- made to the defendant on 30.07.2018. But, that was not brought by the plaintiff counsel in the pleadings. Therefore, allowing the amendment will not change the nature of the suit and the nature of the claim. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for allowing the original petition and set aside the impugned order.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order passed by the trial court and contended that as per the claim made by the plaintiff that he has paid Rs.6,00,000/- to the defendant on 29.06.2018. In fact, he has stated only Rs.2,00,000/- paid on that day. But, the defendant admitted in the written statement that he has received Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff and thereafter the defendant has repaid Rs.4,00,000/- with Rs.30,000/- interest and subsequently after two months, once again he has paid Rs.2,00,000/- as per the defendant’s statement, he has discharged the entire loan amount, there is no money payable to the plaintiff. After framing of issues, the matter is posted for pre-trial steps at the stage the petitioner/plaintiff filed the application to make an amendment for claiming a fresh claim of Rs.4,00,000/- which is a different transaction, w