Decided on March 22,1968

P.S.JOB Respondents


- (1.) The plaintiff is the revision petitioner and the revision petition is directed against the order of the court below refusing his application for amending the plaint. The suit is instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 3893.09 being the balance and interest thereon due from the defendant on account of pattuvaravu transactions. In the application for amending the plaint the plaintiff stated that the balance due from the defendant is Rs. 4721.55 and the sum of Rs. 3065.54 mentioned in the plaint as the balance due is a mistake and that he should be allowed to amend the plaint so as to claim the sum of Rs. 4721-55 and interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from 19-1-1966.
(2.) The application for amendment was dismissed by the court below as it took the view that it does not satisfy the requirements of law, the amendment if allowed will change the character of the suit and the court has no jurisdiction to deal with the application, as the result of allowing the amendment will be to deprive the court of its jurisdiction to try the suit.
(3.) The first ground is based upon the decision in Kesavan v. Bharathan 1954 KLT 513 where it was observed that: "an application for amendment of pleading must state precisely the specific words, clauses or sentences to be added if the prayer is for addition and the precise place in the original pleading where these are to be inserted; if the amendment sought is for deletion of any part of the original pleading the details thereof must also be given with precision." The complaint is that the application for amendment does not satisfy the above principle. On a perusal of the application for amendment it is seen that the prayer is to correct the amount claimed in the plaint and also to claim interest thereon. This is specifically stated in the petition. This is quite sufficient and the view taken by the Munsiff Cannot be accepted.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.