LAWS(APH)-2013-2-41

G S RADHAKRISHNAIAH Vs. Y KARAM SINGH

Decided On February 08, 2013
G S Radhakrishnaiah Appellant
V/S
Y Karam Singh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent filed O.S.No.11 of 2011 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Pakala, against the petitioner herein, by name G.S. Radhakrishnaiah S/o. Chengaiah, Teacher by profession, for recovery of amount on the strength of a promissory note. The summons in the suit were served upon the petitioner. He filed a written statement, denying the execution of the promissory note or borrowing of money, apart from pleading that he is only G.Radhakrishnaiah and that G.S.Radhakrishnaiah is someone else. The trial of the suit commenced. In the course of evidence of petitioner, extensive cross -examination was made mostly touching upon the identity. When the petitioner insisted that he is only G.Radhakrishnaiah, the respondent filed I.A.No.245 of 2012 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC with a prayer to permit him to correct the cause title by omitting the initial 'S', before the name of the petitioner. The petitioner opposed the application. The trial Court allowed the I.A through its order, dated 19.11.2012. The same is challenged in this revision.

(2.) HEARD Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) SOMETIMES , it may happen that the notice addressed to one person is served upon the other. The discrepancy in this regard comes to be resolved, only when the recipient appears in the Court and reveals his identity. If the plaintiffs finds that the person, who receives the notice and appears in the Court, is not the one, against whom he claimed the relief, corrective steps can certainly be taken. After the petitioner appeared in the Court, the respondent herein found him to be the one against whom the relief is claimed. The question as to whether the petitioner borrowed the amount from the respondent and whether he subscribed the signature on the promissory note can certainly be examined with reference to the evidence on record. The amendment ordered by the trial Court would only put the record straight and it cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the petitioner.