HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2193 of 2008 Dated : 17.06.2010 Between : Dr.Makena Seetharama Patrudu ….. Petitioner a n d The District Collector & another ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2193 of 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri K.A.Narasimham, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The revision is directed against the order passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa, on 21.04.2008 in I.A.No.86 of 2008 in O.S.No.93 of 2004 refusing to permit amendment to the long and short cause title of the suit in relation to the description of the first defendant by specifying that the first defendant is the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the District Collector, Vizianagaram, but not the District Collector, Vizianagaram, as originally stated. The claim of the petitioner-plaintiff is that in spite of his instructions to his Advocate, the State was not specified to be a party represented by the concerned District Collector and the slip is only a technical defect, which can be cured by way of an amendment. Defendants 1 and 2 themselves did not file any counter to the petition, but the trial Court considered that in the light of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in view of the negligence on the part of the plaintiff and his counsel, the petition has to fail. The revision petitioner contends that the trial Court ought not to be too technical and should have allowed the amendment which is only formal and which arose out of the mistake of the counsel for which the party cannot be penalized. It is true that Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the proviso added to it prohibits allowing of any application for amendment after commencement of trial unless the Court concludes that the same could not have been raised by the party in spite of due diligence earlier. But, it has to be remembered that rules of procedure are intended to be handmaids of justice and not to punish the parties for their technical lapses. It is seen from the copy of the original plaint that the claim of the plaintiff concerning the subject property is obviously against the State represented by two public Officers sued as the defendants. The plaintiff specifically sought for dispensing with the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the original plaint and the mistake in description of the first defendant is an obvious error committed by the counsel as the plaintiff, who is a Medical Practitioner, could not have known the niceties of the required formats to litigate against the State. The plaintiff stated on oath that in spite of his specific instructions to sue the Collector as representing the State Government, there was a mis-description to deny or dispute which neither respondent had filed any counter. In fact, the impugned order shows that the respondents-defendants were ex parte and un-represented and in such circumstances and in order to achieve the ends of justice and to enable the determination of real questions in controversy between the parties on merits and not on technicalities, the proposed amendment could have been permitted to be made. As the mis- description was not due to the absence of diligence on the part of the plaintiff, the impugned order is set aside and I.A.No.86 of 2008 in O.S.No.93 of 2004 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa, is allowed. The civil revision petition is allowed, accordingly, without costs. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 17th June, 2010 SUR