M V S BHASKAR Vs. GUTHA BALAJI NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the suit, filed LA. No.962 / 91 for amendment of the cause title by correcting the name of the 2nd respondent (2nd defend ant) as "Etukuru Babu Naidu" stating that the name of the 2nd respondent was wrongly mentioned as "Gutta Babu Naidu", by mistake. This application was rejected by the Court below holding that the proposed amendment will change the nature of the case and the cause of action of the suit, while observing that it is open to the petitioner to file a fresh suit against the proposed party.

(2.) Sri P.S. Narayana, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under a wrong imp'ression and by mistake, the petitioner filed the suit by naming the 2nd respondent wrongly, as he was not aware of his name and he wanted the name to be corrected by amending the cause title and that the Court below ought to have allowed the amendment. Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the first respondent submitted that the amendment cannot be ordered, as the petitioner is trying to bring in a fictitious person as second respondent, which will have the effect of changing the nature of the suit.

(3.) In /./. Ram Manoliar Lal vs. National Building Material Supplies it was held that an application under Order 6 Rule 17 should not be refused on the ground that there was no averment therein mat the misdescription was on account of a bona fide mistake and on that ground the suit must fail. It was also held that when the suit is originally instituted by misdescribing the party, amendment of the plaint, substituting the real name should be granted, as the rules of procedure are intended to be the handmaid of administration of justice and a relief cannot be refused merely because of some mistakes, negligence, inadvertence or infraction of rules of procedure. In Kotta Pentaiah vs. P. Laxmansa this Court observed mat Courts are given wide powers to permit corrections that may be needed due to accidental slips, inadvertence oversight, honest mistakes and even negligence, though Courts will not countenance applications for amendment which are mala fide or capricious or which result in injustice to the opposite party. It was further held that if an amendment radically or fundamentally changes the character of the suit or introduces a new case which is totally inconsistent with the case initially put forward or involves a fresh or different cause of action, it can be refused.