KAMADHENU FINANCIERS Vs. N PUSHPAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr O. Mahesh, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner.

(2.) THIS revisidn petition arises from the judgment and order dated 31. 5. 1994 passed by Sri. Basavaraj Patil, Civil Judge, Hassan. on an application for amendment or correction in the cause-title of the plaint. In the plaint, there was a wrong description of the defendant no. 1. The suit was filed against Kamadhenu credit Corporation. But, according to the plaintiff, it was typed as Kamadhenu financier and Traders. Plaintiff moved an application for correction and amendment in the cause-title and also asserted that this mistake has crept in the description of the defendant no. 1 on account of bonafide mistake and inadvertence. Therefore, he may be allowed to correct the description of defendant No. 1 as Kamadhenu Credit Corporation instead of Kamadhenu Financier and Traders. The defendant objected the application on the ground that it amounts to changing the nature of the case. The Court below considered the affidavit and the circumstances of the case, and opined that a complete determination of the real question in controversy was necessary. It further opined that, the misdescription of defendant no. 1 that has been caused on account of bonafide mistake and inadvertance should be allowed to be corrected. It observed that there appears sufficient force in the contention of the plaintiff that mistake in describing the first defendant is due to inadvertance and it further pointed out that except for defendants 4 and 6, other defendants were also the partners of the Credit Corporation. The Court, therefore, opined that the amendment and correction was necessary for determination of real question in controversy and it would be a fit case wherein plaintiff be allowed to correct the description of defendant No. 1 as Kamadhenu Credit Corporation instead of putting it as Kamadhenu financiers and Traders. Feeling aggrieved from that order, the defendant has come up in revision before this Court.

(3.) MR. O. Mahesh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that this application for amendment was moved after almost three and 1/2 years from the date of institution of suit. He contended that this is a suit for recovery of money, therefore, amendment should not be allowed as the amendment was much delayed.