2019 (3) TMI 231 - SC - Indian Laws

Amendment of the plaint - 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 - Held that - The plaint is not properly drafted in as much 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 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. 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 - the order declining to correct the memo of parties cannot be said to be justified in law - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to High Court order dismissing petition seeking permission to amend the plaint.

Analysis:
The appellant, as the Director of a Private Limited Company, filed a suit for recovery of a loan amount. The defendant objected, claiming the suit was not filed by the Plaintiff and the Special Power of Attorney was invalid. The trial court ordered the Plaintiff's address to be furnished and questioned the need for an attorney. The appellant sought to amend the plaint to correct the suit's title. The trial court rejected the amendment, stating it changed the suit's nature. The High Court upheld this decision.

The Supreme Court noted the inadvertent mistake in the plaint's drafting, where the Plaintiff was incorrectly described. The Court emphasized that procedural rules should not defeat substantive rights and cited precedents allowing amendments to pleadings. The Court referenced cases where amendments were permitted even if late, as long as they did not cause injustice. The Court held that the trial court should have allowed the correction to enable the Private Limited Company to sue as the Plaintiff.

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court and trial court orders, allowing the Plaintiff's application to amend the plaint. No costs were awarded, and the appeal was allowed.