KRISHNAVENI Vs. JEYARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revisions have been filed by defendants against the order allowing the applications to amend the plaint.

(2.) PETITIONERS are the legal representatives of one Purushothaman. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the amount due on three promissory notes dated 15.7.2000, 27.7.2000 and 3. 8.2000 respectively. The petitioners are defendants 1 to 3. In the plaint that was originally filed, the respondent had pleaded that the first promissory note was executed by the late Purushothaman and the first petitioner, the second promissory note was executed by late Purushothaman and the second petitioner and the third promissory note was executed by late Purushothaman and the third petitioner. In the list of documents also these promissory notes were similarly described. A proof affidavit was also filed by the respondent. Subsequently, he tiled amendment applications seeking to amend the plaint averments by deleting the names of the second and third petitioner and substituting it with the name of the first petitioner. Therefore, as per the amendment, it is only the first petitioner, who had executed the three promissory notes along with late Purushothaman and not the second petitioner or the third petitioner.

(3.) RELIANCE was also placed on Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Others v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Others, 2004 (2) LW 800, to draw the distinction between 'material facts' and 'material particulars' and how omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action.