simple differences like G.S./ G.in surname initials in the name does not matter when other particulars are correct = When the petitioner insisted that he is only G.Radhakrishnaiah, the respondent filed I.A.No.245 of 2012 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC with a prayer to permit him to correct the cause title by omitting the initial 'S', before the name of the petitioner. The petitioner opposed the application. The trial Court allowed the I.A through its order, dated 19.11.2012. The same is challenged in this revision.= It is not a case, where serious discrepancy existed as to the description of the person. The person, against whom the respondent claimed the relief is Radhakrishnaiah S/o.Chengaiah, resident of Pakala and Teacher by profession. The notice directly reached the petitioner and he did not raise any objection stating that he is not the addressee. The petitioner entered appearance in the suit and he has also filed a written statement. While the initials before the name of the person arrayed as defendant were 'G.S', the petitioner states that his initial is only 'G'. However, the other particulars, such as father's name, profession, place of residence remained the same and the petitioner did not plead that those particulars do not apply to him. Sometimes, it may happen that the notice addressed to one person is served upon the other. The discrepancy in this regard comes to be resolved, only when the recipient appears in the Court and reveals his identity. If the plaintiffs finds that the person, who receives the notice and appears in the Court, is not the one, against whom he claimed the relief, corrective steps can certainly be taken. After the petitioner appeared in the Court, the respondent herein found him to be the one against whom the relief is claimed. The question as to whether the petitioner borrowed the amount from the respondent and whether he subscribed the signature on the promissory note can certainly be examined with reference to the evidence on record. The amendment ordered by the trial Court would only put the record straight and it cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed in this civil revision petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY        

Civil Revision Petition No.72 of 2013

08.02.2013
       
G.S.Radhakrishnaiah.

Y.Karam Singh.

Counsel for the petitioner    : Sri L.J.Veera Reddy

Counsel for respondent : ---

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

?Cases referred:

ORDER:
        The respondent filed O.S.No.11 of 2011 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge,
Pakala, against the petitioner herein, by name G.S. Radhakrishnaiah S/o.
Chengaiah, Teacher by profession, for recovery of amount on the strength of a
promissory note.  The summons in the suit were served upon the petitioner.  He
filed a written statement, denying the execution of the promissory note or
borrowing of money, apart from pleading that he is only G.Radhakrishnaiah and
that G.S.Radhakrishnaiah is someone else.  The trial of the suit commenced.  In
the course of evidence of petitioner, extensive cross-examination was made
mostly touching upon the identity.
When the petitioner insisted that he is only
G.Radhakrishnaiah, the respondent filed I.A.No.245 of 2012 under Order VI Rule
17 of CPC with a prayer to permit him to correct the cause title by omitting the
initial 'S', before the name of the petitioner. The petitioner opposed the
application. The trial Court allowed the I.A through its order, dated
19.11.2012.  The same is challenged in this revision.
        Heard Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
        The only amendment sought for by the respondent was as to a minor 
correction in the name of defendant.
 It is not a case, where serious discrepancy
existed as to the description of the person.  
The person, against whom the
respondent claimed the relief is Radhakrishnaiah S/o.Chengaiah, 
resident of
Pakala and Teacher by profession.  
The notice directly reached the petitioner
and he did not raise any objection stating that he is not the addressee.  
The
petitioner entered appearance in the suit and he has also filed a written
statement. 
While the initials before the name of the person arrayed as defendant
were 'G.S', the petitioner states that his initial is only 'G'. 
 However, the
other particulars, such as father's name, profession, place of residence
remained the same and the petitioner did not plead that those particulars do not
apply to him.
        Sometimes, it may happen that the notice addressed to one person is served
upon the other.
The discrepancy in this regard comes to be resolved, only when
the recipient appears in the Court and reveals his identity. 
 If the plaintiffs
finds that the person, who receives the notice and appears in the Court, is not
the one, against whom he claimed the relief, corrective steps can certainly be
taken.  
After the petitioner appeared in the Court, the respondent herein found
him to be the one against whom the relief is claimed.  
The question as to
whether the petitioner borrowed the amount from the respondent and whether he
subscribed the signature on the promissory note can certainly be examined with
reference to the evidence on record.  
The amendment ordered by the trial Court
would only put the record straight and it cannot be said to have caused any
prejudice to the petitioner.
        Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
        The Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed in this civil revision petition
shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

_____________________  
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J    
February 8, 2013.