It was a small typographical error, what is important is that rest of

the information that has been provided is in complete consonance

with firm’s description.

Merely having one different won’t change the facts of the case,
since it has been clearly proved before the court during the suit
proceedings through various VAT receipts to show proof of
transaction and the decree holder since the very first day has
intended to sue the entity whose name is there on that list.

- DH will demand payment from the entity to whom they have

delivered
- From the bills it can be easily inferred that DH since very
start intended to sue AL Paper House Firm.

When a mistake is so palpable that nobody can possibly have any

doubt as to what the parties meant or what the Court meant when
it passed the judgment, decree or order, such a correction can be
made even under section 152 of the Code.

I have placed judgments on record and these judgments provide

jurisprudence on small errors which are

1. P&H case – Request to correct the khasra number was made

since it was wrongly mentioned in the plaint.
2. The Court also relied on the jdgm of J&K HC wherein was
held that property that was described correctly in all metes
and bounds except one and correction of that won’t affect
the identity of property, in such case amendment under
S.152 can be easily made.
3. IN Jai Jai Ram Case – Appellant had filed a case in the name
of a “non-existing person” due to a bona fide mistake. The
Appellant had used his business name in the plaint instead
of mentioning his own name.
- The Court stated that whenever there is a error,
omission or misdescription due to a bona fide
mistake, the court should grant leave to amend.
4. In Pratibha Singh Case – Here an immovable property was
not definitely identified, SC held that when there is an
inadvertent error, not affecting the merits of the case may be
corrected under section 152 CPC that passed the decree.
 Alternatively, the exact description of the decretal property
may be ascertained by the executing court as a question
relating to execution within the meaning of section 47 CPC.

In Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Gurnam Kaur, (1989) 1

Supreme Court Cases 101, the apex Court in paragraph-10 of the
report in no uncertain terms held that when a direction or order is
made by consent of the parties, the court does not adjudicate upon
the rights of the parties nor does it lay down any principle.
Quotability as ‘law’ applies to the principle of a case, its ratio
decidendi. The only thing in a judge’s decision binding as an
authority upon a subsequent judge is the principle upon which
the case was decided. Statements which were not part of the ratio
decidendi are distinguished as obiter dicta and are not
authoritative.

No prejudice shall be caused to the parties by amending the

names of the parties.