Section 153 CPC cannot rectify substantive party misdescription after evidence has concluded.

The petitioner-plaintiff instituted a commercial suit for recovery of ₹49,00,000 with pendente-lite and future interest against the respondents.

In the plaint, respondent No. 2 was described as “M/s. Tejus Water Solution Pvt. Ltd. through its Prop. Mr. Umesh Kumar Sagar,” while respondent No. 3 was described as “M/s. Creole Incorporation through its Prop. Mr. Himanshu Marwal”.

After the evidence had concluded, the petitioner filed an application under Sections 153 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking correction of the descriptions of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 on the ground that they were sole proprietorship concerns and that their respective proprietors were Mr. Umesh Sagar and Ms. Sangita Marwal.

The Commercial Court dismissed the application as highly belated and intended to delay the proceedings or fill lacunae, noting that the written statements had already disclosed the respondents’ capacities.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the correction sought in the description and legal status of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 could be permitted under Section 153 read with Section 151 CPC as a mere procedural correction or verbal slip.

Whether the Commercial Court committed jurisdictional error, perversity, or material irregularity in refusing the belated correction application after closure of evidence.

Whether the proposed change, involving substitution of private-company descriptions with sole-proprietorship descriptions and alteration of the names of the proprietors, effectively changed the nature and character of the suit qua respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

Section 153 CPC confers a general power on the court to amend defects or errors in proceedings where necessary to determine the real question in controversy, but it does not ordinarily extend to substantive amendments or to curing defects after a party has knowingly slept over its rights.

The general power under Section 153 must yield to the specific procedure under Order VI Rule 17 CPC when an amendment to pleadings is sought.

Relying on Raman Sharma v. Prem Lata Prabhakar, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 9404, the Court held that Section 153 is principally concerned with verbal slips and defects in proceedings and cannot be used to correct substantive errors in pleadings or to effect an amendment that changes the nature of the suit.

The Court also applied the principle that a party cannot invoke the court’s general amendment power to rescue itself from the consequences of failing to act despite being placed on notice of the relevant facts.

The High Court found that the petitioner was aware of the respondents’ asserted legal capacities because the written statements contained relevant averments, yet no correction was sought until after the evidence had concluded.

Thus, the application was not a prompt correction of a clerical or verbal error.

More significantly, the proposed amendment sought to replace the description of a private company with that of a sole proprietorship and to substitute the name of one proprietor with that of another person, thereby affecting the identity and legal character of the concerned parties.

Such changes were substantive and exceeded the limited scope of Section 153 CPC.

Applying Raman Sharma, the Court held that the petitioner could not use Section 153 to introduce an amendment that altered the nature and character of the suit at a belated stage.

Since the Commercial Court’s decision was consistent with these principles, there was no jurisdictional error, perversity, or other ground for interference under Article 227.

It held that the proposed changes were substantive amendments rather than mere corrections of formal defects and could not be permitted under Section 153 read with Section 151 CPC, particularly after closure of evidence and despite the petitioner’s prior knowledge of the relevant facts.

Finding no infirmity, jurisdictional error, or perversity in the Commercial Court’s order, the Court dismissed the petition and all pending applications.