Summary
The Court allowed correction of the plaintiff’s description so that the company, rather than its director personally, could sue to recover a loan advanced by it. Reading the plaint showed an inadvertent drafting error, and refusing its correction on the stated technical ground was unjustified.
Issues
- Whether correcting the plaintiff’s description from the director to the company impermissibly changed the nature of the recovery suit.
Provisions considered
- Order VI Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The amendment power was applied to correct the inadvertent description of the plaintiff apparent from the plaint, consistent with deciding the real controversy and avoiding injustice through curable procedural defects. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
Held
- The plaint described the director and company in reverse order even though the pleaded transaction concerned the company’s loan. The proposed correction reflected the substance of the existing case rather than the impermissible conversion perceived by the courts below. (¶¶ 3, 5, 6, 8, 11)
- Mistake, negligence or inadvertence alone does not justify refusing amendment. Procedure serves justice; curable defects should not defeat substantive rights, subject to the recognised limits against mala fides, uncompensable prejudice and mandatory statutory consequences. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- The apparent drafting mistake ought to have been corrected to permit the company to sue as plaintiff. This decided the amendment request, not liability on the loan. (¶¶ 11, 12)
Result
Appeal allowed; trial court and High Court orders set aside, and application to amend the plaint allowed. No costs.