Allowed

P Venkatachalapathy v. M/S.7/24 Enterprises

Madras HC22 Apr 2021CRP/195/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition, this court set aside an order refusing to amend a plaint. The court held that replacing 'pronote' with 'cheque' was a bona fide clerical error by the court staff and did not alter the cause of action, allowing the amendment.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 26.11.2020 in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.187 of 2017 is allowed to permit amendment of the plaint changing 'pronote' to 'cheque'.

P Venkatachalapathy Vs M/S.7/24 Enterprises — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.04.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

C.R.P. (PD) No.195 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.1795 of 2021

¶6

P.Venkatachalapathy ..Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶7

¶8

1.M/s.7/24 Enterprises, A Partnership Firm rep. by its Partner J.Gokila

¶9

Residing at Anuppam Towers, No.7/2, Brindavan Road, 7th Cross, Fairlands, Salem - 636 004.

¶10

2.J.Gokila 3.V.Kalaimani ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants

¶11

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the order and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.187 of 2017 dated 26.11.2020 on the file of Learned III Additional District Judge, Salem and allow the Civil Revision Petiton.

¶12

For Petitioner .. Mr.R.Raman Laal For R1 to R3 .. Mr.R.Murudhachalamurthy

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed calling into question the order dated 26.11.2020 in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.187 of 2017, now pending on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Salem.

¶15

2.O.S.No.187 of 2017 had been filed by the present petitioner in his capacity as the plaintiff against the defendants seeking a Judgment and Decree directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.27,17,300/- along with interest and for costs. Among the documents filed with the plaint, document no.1 was a cheque bearing no.787274 for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- drawn on Allahabad Bank, Swarnapuri, Salem in favour of the plaintiff dated 18.07.2014. The document no.4 was a cheque return memo dated 19.07.2014 and document no.9 was a

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

copy of the complaint in STC.No.17 of 2016 on the file of the JM-2, Salem dated 13-08-2014.

¶18

3.These documents have been mentioned only to show that the basis on which the suit had been filed was on the basis of issuance of a cheque allegedly by the defendants.

¶19

4.I am not examining whether the defendants had actually issued the cheque or whether the defendants had signed a blank cheque or whether the plaintiff had stolen a cheque of the defendants. At any rate, a cheque was in excistence.

¶20

5.In the plaint, the averments show that the plaintiff had filed the suit on the value of the cheque and since it was returned dishonoured when presented before the Bank. However, in three separate places, in paragraph no.14, in paragraph no.15 and in the valuation column, the plaintiff has stated pronote instead of cheque. In the cause of action paragraph, it has been stated that the cause of action arose when according to the plaintiff, the second defendant had given a post dated cheque.

¶21

6.To correct the word pronote by replacing it with the word cheque, an application had been filed seeking amendment of the plaint on those lines.

¶22

7.A written statement had been filed on behalf of the second defendant and at no point in the written statement, has the defendant stated that they had issued any pronote. As a matter of fact, they have never issued any pronote. The only transaction that has happened between the parties is issuance of a cheque and on demand of money on the basis of the said cheque, whether the defendants actually issued the cheque or whether the defendants had not issued the cheque or whether the defendants had signed a blank cheque or whether the plaintiff had stolen a cheque of the defendants are matters which can be decided only during trial. But, the only document in dispute is a cheque and that fact cannot either be denied or disputed by either side.

¶23

8.The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the advocate for the revision petitioner before the trial Court did not sign the petition seeking amendment. If that be so, the Court below should have returned the petition to the petitioner for compliance. On the other hand, it is seen that the said appication had been kept over and a string of adjournments have been given and finally an order was passed on 26.11.2020. In the said order, the learned Judge has stated that the computer operator cannot type a matter given by a counsel by typing the word cheque as pronote. The learned Judge has also observed that the above said mistake cannot be accepted as a bonafide mistake on the part of the computer operator.

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

9.If the word pronote is typed in three separate places and in all other places, the word cheque has been used, a reasonable conclusion can be drawn that it was only a mistake.

¶26

10.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that a fresh cause of action would not arise if the word pronote is replaced with the word cheque.

¶27

11.Even if it is the case of the defendants that they had issued a promissory note, and I must emphasise, that is not their case, a cause of action would arise only when the defendants had not paid the amount on the promissory note when demanded by the plaintiff.

¶28

12.In view of the reasons stated, the order questioned in Revision necessarily has to be interefered with and I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.187 of 2017 is allowed. The Revision Petitioner/plaintiff is permitted to carry out necessary amendment in the plaint. After granting necessary permission to the petitioner to amend the plaint, the learned III Additional District Judge, Salem may give an opportunity to the defendants to file additional written statement if sought, in view of the said amendment and thereafter, proceed with the suit after framing the issues.

¶29

13.Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar Tsg To The III Additional District Judge, Salem. +1 CC to Mr.R. Ramanlal, Advocate sr 24907. +1 CC to Mr.R. Marudhachalamurthy, Advocate sr 24583. C.R.P. (PD) No.195 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.1795 of 2021 EV(CO) SP(30/06/2021)

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

P Venkatachalapathy v. M/S.7/24 Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Venkatachalapathy v. M/S.7/24 Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.S.Velusamy Vs Chokkalingam

Saroja Vs M.P.Sulochana

Seetharaman(Died) Vs the District Collector

K.Kalaiselvi Vs D.Suresh

K.Muthusamy Vs Govindammal

P.Anbuchezhiyan Vs Selvaraj