Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 551 (MAD)

S. Krishnamohan v. P. K. Muthusamy

2009-02-13

G.RAJASURIA

body2009
Judgment : Inveighing the order dated 25.04.2007, passed by the learned District Munsif Court, Tirupur in I.A.No.328 of 2005 in O.S.No.588 of 2004, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite printing the name of the respondent, no one appeared and there is no representation on his behalf. 3. A resume of facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.588 of 2004 for recovering a sum of Rs.84,000/- based on the pronote dated 10.03.2000 purported to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of a sum of Rs.50,000/-. The defendant entered appearance and filed written statement totally denying such lending of money in favour of the defendant. Thereupon, it appears issues were framed. It appears that the trial has not yet commenced as put forth by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff. At that juncture, I.A.No.328 of 2005 was filed seeking amendment of the plaint on the ground that in the plaint instead of specifying that the pronote was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 10.03.2000, it was wrongly typed as 11.03.2000. However, after hearing both sides, the lower Court dismissed the I.A. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the lower Court, this revision has been filed on various grounds. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would advance her argument placing reliance on the grounds of revision to the effect that the lower Court failed to allow the I.A. so as to enable the plaintiff to get corrected the typographical error. 5. Perused the records. To say the least, the plaintiff while filing affidavit accompanying I.A.No.328 of 2005 carelessly and recklessly got it typed as though the amendment was sought in respect of the date 11.03.2000 to be corrected as 10.03.2002, when in fact his real intention is to get corrected 11.03.2000 as 10.03.2000. As such, not only a typographical error crept in the plaint, but even in the affidavit which had been filed to get the typographical error corrected in the plaint, there crept in another typographical error as set out supra by me. The suit pronote is bearing the date only as 10.03.2000 . As such, not only a typographical error crept in the plaint, but even in the affidavit which had been filed to get the typographical error corrected in the plaint, there crept in another typographical error as set out supra by me. The suit pronote is bearing the date only as 10.03.2000 . No doubt, in the pre suit notice as well as in the plaint, erroneously according to the plaintiff the date of pronote is mentioned as 11.03.2000. 6. It is a common or garden principle of law that reality has to be seen by the Court by applying justice, equity and good conscience. Technicalities are only procedural in nature and hand maids of justice and they cannot be allowed to dominate the adjudicatory process. In civil cases, preponderance of probabilities would govern the adjudication. In such a case, if the matter if viewed, accordingly, clear that it is because of such a typographical errors, all these confusions and obfuscations crept in. Because of the laches on the part of the plaintiff, the lower Court got itself perplexed and flummoxed, bamboozled and side tracted which resulted in passing the order dismissing the I.A. I am of the considered opinion that the lower Court by applying the principles as enunciated by me supra could have allowed the application by awarding cost in view of the laches on the part of the plaintiff. No one should be allowed to make mountain out of a mole hill. 7. There is also one other point to be noted. There is some typographical error as set out supra in the prayer in the I.A.No.328 of 2005. The amendment sought is only with regard to date, so to say, the date 11.03.2000 has to be replaced by 10.03.2000, but what was stated in the affidavit relating to the year is 2002, which is once again a mistake. The Court below felt that the plaintiff could have in the I.A. Spelt out stated in what are all the places in the plaint the date should be modified or amended or corrected. I am of the view that it is once again a mistake because the intention of the plaintiff is that wherever such wrong date 11.03.2000 is found mentioned,, it should be corrected as 10.03.2000. 8. I am of the view that it is once again a mistake because the intention of the plaintiff is that wherever such wrong date 11.03.2000 is found mentioned,, it should be corrected as 10.03.2000. 8. As such, considering the pro et contra, in this factual matrix, I am of the considered view that the I.A. has to be allowed on cost of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) payable by the plaintiff to the defendant within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as otherwise this order will not enure to the benefit of the plaintiff. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed with cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.