Orissa High Court: Dr A.K. Rath, J. allowed the petition for amendment filed by Corporation Bank, represented through Chief Manager of its Bhubaneswar branch, and directed the trial court to incorporate necessary amendment in the plaint.
In the present case, defendants had availed a loan from the bank and created an equitable mortgage in respect of a part of the suit schedule property in favour of the petitioner-bank. The loan account became NPA. The bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’). The bank obtained an order to take possession and securities before taking delivery of possession of the equitable mortgage of land and building. After which it received a letter from the District Officer, Angul that a civil suit was sub-judice, wherein the order of status quo had been passed as the plaintiff party had instituted a suit for partition and permanent injunction impleading the defendants. The petitioner filed a petition for amendment of the cause title of the petitions stating that due to inadvertence, application was filed to implead the Chief Manager, Corporation Bank, Bhubaneswar Main Branch, Kharvel Nagar, Bhubaneswar as defendant No. 11 instead of Corporation Bank represented through Chief Manager, Bhubaneswar Main Branch, Kharvel Nagar, Bhubaneswar. The learned trial court rejected the petition on the ground that Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was not applicable for amending an application under Section 47 CPC.
Learned counsel for petitioner, S.D. Das submitted that the proposed amendment was formal in nature. The same will not change the nature and character of the suit. He then placed reliance on Varun Pahwa v. Renu Chaudhary, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 300 where Supreme Court held that the plaint had not been properly drafted, the plaintiff had been 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. Thus, it was a mistake of 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. The memo of the parties was thus clearly an inadvertent mistake on the part of the counsel who drafted the plaint. It was settled that amendment in the pleadings could not be rejected on the ground of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure.
Hence the impugned order was set aside and the petition for the amendment was allowed, directing the trial court to incorporate necessary amendment in the plaint.[Corporation Bank v. Sailabala Pradhan, 2019 SCC OnLine Ori 186, decided on 01-05-2019]