Trademark Dispute Over ‘Pe’ Settled Between Phone Pe and Bharat Pe  ||  Centre Starts Granting Citizenship Under CAA in West Bengal, Haryana and Uttarakhand  ||  Circular Regarding Prioritizing Cases of Litigants/Advocates with Disability, Issued by Delhi HC  ||  Del. HC: Free Wi-fi Facility Launched by Delhi High Court for Lawyers, General Public  ||  Ker. HC: Construction of Illegal Religious Structures Cannot be Permitted on Government Land  ||  Kar. HC: De-Nomination of Chairman of Minorities Commission by Govt. Before Term is Not Arbitrary  ||  Delhi High Court: Question of Property Title Can’t be Decided by Forums Under Senior Citizens Act  ||  Jh. HC: Can’t Cancel Bail Unless There is Violation of Bail Conditions or Accused Impedes Fair Trial  ||  Guidelines Issued by Delhi High Court for Trial Court Judges to Decide Transfer Applications  ||  P&H HC: Presence of Magistrate Mandatory to Prove Compliance With Section 52A of the NDPS Act    

Varun Pahwa Vs. Renu Chaudhary - (Supreme Court) (01 Mar 2019)

Amendment in pleadings cannot be refused merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of Rules of Procedure

MANU/SC/0307/2019

Civil

The Order passed by the High Court of Delhi is subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. By the aforesaid order, a petition against an order passed by the learned trial Court seeking permission to amend the plaint was dismissed. The trial Court declined the amendment on the ground that, the application is an attempt to convert the suit filed by a private individual into a suit filed by a Private Limited Company which is not permissible as it completely changes the nature of the suit.

The plaint is not properly drafted as in the memo of parties, the Plaintiff is described as Varun Pahwa through Director of Siddharth Garments Pvt. Ltd. though it should have been Siddharth Garments Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Varun Pahwa. Thus, it is a case of mistake of the counsel, may be on account of lack of understanding as to how a Private Limited Company is to sue in a suit for recovery of the amount advanced.

The memo of parties is thus clearly inadvertent mistake on the part of the counsel who drafted the plaint. Such inadvertent mistake cannot be refused to be corrected, when the mistake is apparent from the reading of the plaint. The Rules of Procedure are handmaid of justice and cannot defeat the substantive rights of the parties. It is well settled that, amendment in the pleadings cannot be refused merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the Rules of Procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleadings even if a party is negligent or careless as the power to grant amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitations.

In Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and Anr. this Court held that, procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice. Procedure should never be made a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice by any oppressive or punitive use.

Thus, it was an inadvertent mistake in the plaint which trial Court should have allowed to be corrected so as to permit the Private Limited Company to sue as Plaintiff as the Original Plaintiff has filed suit as Director of the said Private Limited Company. Therefore, the order declining to correct the memo of parties cannot be said to be justified in law. Consequently, the orders passed by the High Court and by the trial Court are set-aside and the application filed by the Plaintiff to amend the plaint is allowed.

Relevant : Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and Anr. MANU/SC/2173/2005

Tags : PLAINT   AMENDMENT   ENTITLEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved