Curable defects in pleadings may be corrected to reflect the real plaintiff and avoid defeating substantive rights.

A plaint may be amended to correct an inadvertent misdescription of the plaintiff and allow a private limited company to sue through its director where the defect is curable and the real controversy can be decided. Procedural rules are intended to advance justice, so correction should not be refused merely because the mistake arose from negligence or inadvertence. The amendment is proper unless it causes prejudice to the other side that cannot be compensated. Here, the amendment was allowed and the refusal to correct the plaint was held unjustified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint could be amended to correct the description of the plaintiff and permit the private limited company to sue through its director.

Analysis: The incorrect description in the memo of parties was held to be an inadvertent drafting mistake. Procedural rules were treated as serving the ends of justice and not defeating substantive rights. A curable defect in pleadings ought not to be refused correction merely because of mistake, negligence, or inadvertence, unless prejudice incapable of compensation is caused to the other side.

Conclusion: The amendment was allowed and the refusal to correct the plaint was held unjustified.

Ratio Decidendi: Curable defects in pleadings may be corrected at any stage where the amendment is necessary to determine the real controversy and does not cause irremediable prejudice to the opposite party.

---