C.R.No.140 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.140 of 2009 Date of Decision : 02.07.2009 Manohar Lal ...Petitioner Versus Harjit Kaur and Another ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. H.S.Saggu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anurag Arora, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORA) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 11.11.2008 passed by the learned trial Court declining the application filed by the plaintiff to amend cause-title of the suit so as to substitute Manohar Lal S/o Kapuri Mal, Karta HUF, to that of Manohal Lal S/o Kapuri Mal i.e. By deleting the words 'Karta HUF'. It is the case of the plaintiff that by mistake the words 'Karta HUF' has been mentioned in the cause-title and the plaintiff has sought amendment after the defendant has taken an objection in respect of mis- description of the plaintiff. It has pleaded by the plaintiff in his application for amendment that in fact amount of Rs.7 lacs belongs to Manohar lal, HUF and that amount has been shown in the account of said HUF. However, it is immaterial whether the amount was given from its individual account or from account of HUF. It has been pleaded that the word 'Karta HUF' was typed due to typographical mistake and Manohar C.R.No.140 of 2009 2 Lal S/o Kapuri Mal is the real plaintiff. The learned trial Court has passed a detailed order declining the amendment interalia on the ground that the plaintiff in his affidavit Ex.PW-3/A has alleged that defendant Manohal Lal borrowed Rs.7 lacs from him being Karta of HUF and, therefore, it will amount to withdraw his earlier submission. The trial Court considered the fact that HUF and individual person are two distinct persons and, therefore, the pleading sought to be raised by the plaintiff would mean that the plaintiff is permitted to file suit in individual capacity after the expiry of limitation, thus, it would change the nature of the suit. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and is of the opinion that the learned trial Court was not justified in law in declining the amendment. Though legally speaking a Hindu un-divided family is distinct jurist person than individual but the fact remains that jurist person and the individual both are represented by the same individual. Therefore, there could be some misconception and confusion while framing cause-title of the suit. It is the stand of the plaintiff that it is immaterial whether the amount is advanced by Manohal Lal, individual or by Hindu un-divided family. The said stand cannot be said to be incorrect in law. The plaintiff is required to prove the due execution of the pronote and if pronote is proved to be executed, it carries presumption of consideration. By correcting the cause-title, there is no substitution of the plaintiff as is sought to be raised by the learned trial Court. It is a simplicitor delition of the words, which can appear due to inadvertant mistake. It will be in the interest of justice, if the plaintiff is permitted to C.R.No.140 of 2009 3 amend the plaint. The parties should contest the lis on merits, not on technicalities. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned trial Court suffers from patent illegality and irregularity, which defeats the cause of justice. Consequently, the present revision petition is allowed. The order dated 11.11.2008 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. The plaintiff/petitioner is permitted to amend the cause-title as sought. 02.07.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE