The Supreme Court has observed that inadvertent mistake made in the plaint cannot be refused to be corrected when the mistake is apparent from the reading of the plaint
Amendment that was sought in this case (Varun Pahwa vs. Renu Chaudhary) was simple. In the plaint, the Plaintiff was described as Varun Pahwa through Director of Siddharth Garments Pvt. Ltd. though it should have been Siddharth Garments Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Varun Pahwa.
The Trial Court, whose order was later upheld by the High court, declined the amendment on the ground that the application is an attempt to convert the suit filed by a private individual into a suit filed by a Private Limited Company which is not permissible as it completely changes the nature of the suit.
In the appeal, the bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta observed that the error made in the memo of parties was clearly inadvertent mistake on the part of the counsel who drafted the plaint. The bench said:
“Such inadvertent mistake cannot be refused to be corrected when the mistake is apparent from the reading of the plaint. The Rules of Procedure 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.”
Referring to some earlier judgments, the bench added that procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice. Procedure should never be made a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice by any oppressive or punitive use, it added.
Setting aside the orders, the bench said that since it was an inadvertent mistake in the plaint, the 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.