Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 370 (KER)

K. R Renjithmon v. P. J. Mary

2011-03-30

K.T.SANKARAN

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. The first respondent instituted a suit before the Sub Court, Ernakulam. She filed the suit as an indigent person. Indigent O.P.No.1 of 2010 was filed stating that she is not having sufficient resources to pay the court fee. A contention was put forward by the defendants that the application under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not filed in the proper form. I.A.No.8999 of 2010 was filed by the plaintiff to correct the mistake so as to make the application in the proper form. The court below allowed that application by the order dated 7.2.2011, which is under challenge in this Original Petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies only to pleadings. The Expression "pleadings" is defined under Order VI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure as plaint or written statement. Therefore, the application is not maintainable. The court below noticed this contention and held that if Order VI Rule 17 cannot be applied, Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be invoked. Learned counsel for the petitioner also raised certain points in respect of the contention of the petitioner that the first respondent is not an indigent person. It is not necessary to consider all those aspects in this Original Petition as the court below has not considered the application under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the merits. The petitioner would be free to raise all those contentions in the Indigent O.P.No.1 of 2010. 3. The contention of the petitioner that a mistake could be corrected only if the same occurs in the plaint or in the written statement and that mistakes in any other proceeding including affidavits could not be corrected, if accepted, it would lead to disastrous consequences. Mistakes may occur in an interlocutory application or in an affidavit or in a statement or in a counter statement. If it is found that a mistake has occurred, the party concerned would be entitled to file an application to correct the mistake. There need not be any specific provision in the Code of Civil Procedure for correcting such errors. Mistakes may occur in an interlocutory application or in an affidavit or in a statement or in a counter statement. If it is found that a mistake has occurred, the party concerned would be entitled to file an application to correct the mistake. There need not be any specific provision in the Code of Civil Procedure for correcting such errors. Even assuming that Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, as such, is not applicable, the inherent power of the Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be invoked to correct certain patent mistakes. Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the Court may at any time, and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it may think fit, amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit, and all necessary amendments shall be made for the purpose of determining the real question or issue raised by or depending on such proceeding. There is no reason why Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked in the present case. The expression "proceeding in a suit" applies not only to pleadings as defined in Rule 1 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, but to any other proceeding or affidavit or statement or paper presented to the Court. The civil court which has to deal with a suit or proceeding would have all the inherent powers to enable it to determine the questions involved in the suit or proceedings. A mistake or omission or error would not stand in the way of the court in discharging functions as a court. The court has every power to allow the parties to rectify the mistake or error or supply the omission, if it does not offend the specific provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure or other laws. The order passed by the court below does not call for any interference. The Original Petition lacks merits and it is, accordingly, dismissed.