Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a civil court could permit amendment of the plaint after the final decree had been passed to correct a clerical mistake in the property description, and whether the appellants were entitled to be heard afresh on that amendment application.
Analysis: The power to allow amendment of pleadings is wide, but it is controlled by the requirements that the amendment be bona fide, cause no injustice to the opposite side, and not impair rights already accrued. The suit property had always been identifiable as the same joint family property, and the incorrect Town Survey number in the plaint and decrees was only a typographical error. The appellants had already been impleaded in the final decree proceedings, the preliminary and final decrees had attained finality, and they had not shown any prejudice caused by the correction. In these circumstances, insisting on a further hearing would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an empty formality.
Conclusion: The amendment correcting the clerical error was permissible, and the appellants were not entitled to relief.
Final Conclusion: The correction of the property description was upheld, and the appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A clerical or typographical error in the description of suit property may be corrected even after decree where the amendment is bona fide, does not substitute one property for another, and causes no prejudice to accrued rights or the real controversy between the parties.