Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 5439 (MAD)

Bairappan @ Mani v. S. Mangammal

2010-12-09

S.MANIKUMAR

body2010
Judgment :- 1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the fair and decreetal order dated 06.08.2010 in I.A.No.730 of 2010 in O.S.No.24 of 2009 by which the Lower Court has ordered an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. for amendment of the date of Ex.A1 Suit Pronote as 30.12.2005 instead of 10.11.2006. The supporting Affidavit of the above petition was filed by the Advocate on record. 2. Though, the Respondent has raised objection on two grounds viz., the Advocate is not competent person to file an Affidavit on behalf of the Plaintiff and that the Advocate has filed an amendment petition after the trial has commenced, the Lower court, on verification of Ex.A1 Suit Pronote, has found that the Plaintiff had already given the correct date as 30.12.2005 in cause of action and that the suit pronote is also dated 30.12.2005 and therefore, by amendment of the date, month and year, no new facts are introduced in the case or the nature of the suit is altered. Hence, the Lower court has allowed the amendment. 3. Though the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has contended that an Advocate, not being a party to the case, cannot file an Affidavit for amendment, this Court is of the considered view that what is sought for by way of an amendment is only to correct a typographical mistake said to have been committed by the Learned counsel. Whether an Affidavit can be filed by a counsel, it is worthwhile to extract a passage from the decision of this Court reported in R.M.Bedi V. Vijayeswari Textiles Ltd., with its Registered Corporate Office at No.1088, Avanashi Road, Coimbatore and Another, 2007 (3) CTC 231 , wherein this Court has held that Rule 13 of the Bar Council of India Rules does not bar an Advocate from filing an Affidavit, in the interest of his client. Legal Practitioners are certainly the agents of the parties and the client should not suffer for the fault of the agents. 4. As stated supra, in the cause of action portion, the date of the suit pronote has been mentioned as 30.12.2005 and that the Suit Pronote also bares the date of 30.12.2005. When the mistake is committed by the learned counsel on record, the same can be corrected by his sworn affidavit. 5. 4. As stated supra, in the cause of action portion, the date of the suit pronote has been mentioned as 30.12.2005 and that the Suit Pronote also bares the date of 30.12.2005. When the mistake is committed by the learned counsel on record, the same can be corrected by his sworn affidavit. 5. In view of the above, I do not find any manifest illegality in the impugned order warranting interference. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.