VARUN PAHWA versus MRS. RENU CHAUDHARY

Citation: [2019] 4 S.C.R. 128 · Decided: 01-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
128
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
VARUN PAHWA
v.
MRS. RENU CHAUDHARY
(Civil Appeal No.  2431 of 2019)
MARCH 01, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – O. VI, r.17 – Amendment of
pleadings – Appellant-plaintiff as director of a company filed a suit
for recovery of Rs.25,00,000/- – Thereafter, plaintiff filed an
application for amendment of the plaint on the ground that the
counsel had inadvertently made the title of the suit wrongly as the
loan was advanced through the Company, therefore, the suit was to
be in the name of the Company – Trial Court declined the
amendment – High Court affirmed the order of the trial court – On
appeal, held: The plaint was not properly drafted in as much as in
the memo of parties, the plaintiff was described as ‘VP’ through
director of the Company though it should have been Company
through its director ‘VP’ – It was inadvertent mistake on the part of
the counsel who drafted the plaint – Such inadvertent mistake could
not be refused to be corrected when mistake was apparent from the
reading of the plaint – Therefore, the order declining to correct the
memo of parties not justified in law – Consequently, orders passed
by the trial Court and the High Court set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The plaint is not properly drafted in as much as
in the memo of parties, the Plaintiff is described as ‘VP’ through
Director of SG Pvt. Ltd. though it should have been SG Pvt. Ltd.
through its Director ‘VP’. Thus, it is a case of mistake of the
counsel, may be on account of lack of understanding as to how a
Private Limited Company is to sue in a suit for recovery of the
amount advanced. [Para 8][131-B, C]
2. The memo of parties is thus clearly inadvertent mistake
on the part of the counsel who drafted the plaint. Such inadvertent
mistake cannot be refused to be corrected when the mistake is
apparent from the reading of the plaint. The Rules of Procedure
[2019] 4 S.C.R. 128
128
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
129
are handmaid of justice and cannot defeat the substantive rights
of the parties. It is well settled that amendment in the pleadings
cannot be refused merely because of some mistake, negligence,
inadvertence or even infraction of the Rules of Procedure. The
Court always gives leave to amend the pleadings even if a party
is negligent or careless as the power to grant amendment of the
pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not
governed by any such narrow or technical limitations. [Para 9]
[131-C-E]
3. Thus, this Court finds that it was an inadvertent mistake
in the plaint which trial court should have allowed to be corrected
so as to permit the Private Limited Company to sue as Plaintiff
as the original Plaintiff has filed suit as Director of the said Private
Limited Company. Therefore, the order declining to correct the
memo of parties cannot be said to be justified in law. [Para 11]
[133-G,H]
State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction
Company Limited (2010) 4 SCC 518 : [2010] 4 SCR 46;
Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh
and Another (2006) 1 SCC 75 : [2005] 5  Suppl.
 SCR 157 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2010] 4 SCR 46
relied on
Para 9
[2005] 5  Suppl.  SCR 157
relied on
Para 10
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2431
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.08.2018 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in CM(M) No. 958 of 2018.
Avinash Kr. Lakhanpal, Adv. for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The Order dated 20.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi
is subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. By the aforesaid
order, a petition against an order passed by the learned trial court on
23.01.2018 seeking permission to amend the plaint was dismissed.
VARUN PAHWA v. MRS. RENU CHAUDHARY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
130
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
3. The appellant as Director of Siddharth Garments Pvt. Ltd. filed
a suit for recovery of Rs. 25,00,000/- along with pendente lite and future
interest on or about 28.05.2016.  The Plaintiff has claimed the said amount
advanced as loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- remitted to the defendant through
RTGS on 16.06.2013 on HDFC Bank, Delhi. It is also averred that Plaintiff
has given Special Power of Attorney to Shri Navneet Gupta and that a
copy of the Power of Attorney is enclosed.
4. The defendant raised one of the preliminary objections in the
written statement that suit h

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.