JUDGMENT
Hanumanthappa, J.
1. The petitioner in this Revision Petition is sole respondent in H.R.C.No. 1267/1989 and 1269/1989. On his filing objections both the parties entered the witness box. When evidence was in progress landlord filed an application under Section 153 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. viz., I.A.No. 12, requesting that he may be permitted to amend the cause title as under:
“M/s Maniram Industrial Enterprises, A registered partnership firm, represented by its partner Smt. Parvathi Subramaniam, w/o. Sri A.S. Subramanyam, No. 27/30, II Main Road, Industrial Town, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 044.”
2. The said application was opposed by the tenant/petitioner. However, the trial Court taking into consideration that by allowing the amendment no prejudice will be caused to the other side, passed an order permitting the landlord to delete the name of the respondent as represented by the General Manager A.S. Subramaniam and in its place to substitute partner Smt. Parvathi Subramanyam.
3. Shri. Ravi G. Sabhahit, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner contended that such an amendment changes the very nature of the petition. According to him the trial Court has erred in not noticing that the application to delete the name and correct the cause title is highly belated. The said application was made with a sole intention of harassing and pressurising the petitioner. In support of it, he has also placed reliance on a Decision rendered by the High Court of Orissa reported in BHUBANESHWAR PATEL v. JANAK PATEL AND ORS. Sri Sriram, learned Counsel for the landlord submitted that the landlord realising the mistake committed in giving the correct description contrary to the very lease deed and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings he thought it fit to bring a proper person in place of wrong person and as such the I.A. was filed. When such a request was made trial Court was justified in accepting the same and granting permission. He submitted that the order under challenge has not resulted in causing any hardship to the person deleted. In support of his contention he also placed reliance on a Decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of PURUSHOTTAM UMEDBHAI AND CO. v. MANILAL AND SONS .
4. In order to appreciate rival contentions, it is better to bear in mind the scope of Section 153 of C.P.C. which reads as follows:
“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”.
In order to see that multiplicity of proceedings is avoided and Justice is rendered, discretion lies with the Court to permit to make corrections in the cause title. That is what has been done in the instant case. As far as the Decision relied upon by Sri Sabhahit, is concerned, it has no bearing on the facts of the case on hand as that was a case considered under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. regarding maintainability. Whereas, in the case relied upon by Sri Sriram, i.e., Purushottam Umedbhai and Co. v. Manilal and Sons, Their Lordships have held that the description of the plaint can be amended by way of substitution or correction. This Decision has been followed subsequently in JAI JAI RAM MANOHAR LAL v. NATIONAL BUILDING MATERIAL SUPPLY , wherein while explaining the scope of Section 153 of C.P.C. the Supreme Court observed as under:
“Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder he had caused injury, to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. However, negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however, late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side.”
The Supreme Court has further observed as follows:
“Since the name in which the action was instituted was merely a misdescription of the original plaintiff, no question of limitation arises the plaint must be deemed on amendment to have been instituted in the name of the real plaintiff, on the date on which it was originally instituted.”
5. This Court in the case of RAMANGOUDA AND ANR. v. FIRM BY NAME “GONHAL BASANGOUDA, BASAVA RAJAPPA RAJENDRA GUNJ RAICHUR”AIR 1969 Mysore 111 has taken similar view and held as follows:
“Suit by firm-plaintiff suing by mistake as owner of firm -Defendant signing for loan taken in Books of Firm – Suit cannot be held to be not maintainable on technical ground that plaintiff sued in his own name – Mistake in plaint can be set right.”
6. For the aforesaid reasons, it is not appropriate to interfere with the order of the trial Court. Hence Petition is dismissed.
7. When Cause title is amended by deleting Maniram, industrial Enterprise and in its place partner Smt. Parvathil Subramanyam’s name is substituted, it is just and fair to issue notice to Smt. Parvathi Subramanyam, to prevent either abuse of the process of the Court or to avoid multiplicity of proceedings arid it is needless to say that on such service of notice Smt Parvathi Subramanyam, will have a right to file her objections available to her and contest the petition as if she has come on record afresh.