KADDIPUDI SIDDAPPA SHETTY Vs. M IBRAHIM BAIG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This matter coming up for admission after notice to the respondent is disposed of by the following order ex parte. The respondent though represented is absent and his Counsel is also not present.

(2.) In O.S. No. 18/1983 the defendant Kaddipudi Siddappa Setty sought an amendment which in effect wanted to correct a factual error in the written statement. The amendment sought is as follows : "In written statement after 1st para 1 (a) be added as follows : The name of the 1st defendant is Siddappa Setty and he was doing the 'Kaddipudi' (Tobacco) business he was all called by some people as 'Kaddipudi Siddappa'. The 1st defendant's father's name is Sattaiah Setty and not Gejjappa Setty @ Laxmana Setty. Gejjappa Setty @ Laxmana Setty is no other the brother of 1st defendant Siddappa Shetty." That application made on 10-8-1987 to incorporate the above amendment came to be dismissed summarily by the trial Court in Munsiff at Mudigere, Chickmagalur, on the sole ground that it highly belated No other reason is assigned.

(3.) The trial Court should not make such an approach when factual error is sought to be corrected by a party in the suit in his pleadings. When that factual error will not in any way affect the merit or the decision on the issues raised in the suit nor has the effect of changing the cause of action, the Court should allow the amendment.