TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 628895, however, by mistake it appears that in the complaint cheque number was mentioned as 628892. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the mistake is a simple infirmity, which is curable by means of a formal amendment, and by allowing such an amendment, no prejudice would be caused to the applicant, as he was served with a statutory notice giving the correct cheque number, i.e. 628895. If a notice is given on the basis of incorrect cheque number, then the entire foundation will fall and the complainant cannot maintain his complaint on the basis of incorrect cheque number. However, in the present case, it is not the case of the applicant that the statutory notice was issued to him by mentioning incorr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -, but the same was returned back by the bank on the ground of insufficient funds. During the pendency of the complaint, an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed for amendment in the complaint on the ground that by mistake cheque No. 628895 has been wrongly mentioned as 628892. 4. By order dated 13/9/2019 the Trial Magistrate allowed the application and permitted the respondent to amend the complaint and instead of cheque No. 628892, cheque No. 628895 is permitted to be substituted. 5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Magistrate, the applicant preferred a revision which has been dismissed by the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge, Vidisha. 6. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment, no prejudice would be caused to the applicant, as he was served with a statutory notice giving the correct cheque number, i.e. 628895. 10. So far as the judgment relied upon by the applicant passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Lekhraj Singh Kushwah (supra) is concerned, the same is distinguishable on facts. In the case of Lekhraj Singh Kushwah (supra) the statutory notice was issued mentioning incorrect cheque number, whereas in the present case, it is not disputed by the counsel for the applicant that the statutory notice was issued by mentioning the correct cheque number, i.e. 628895. The Supreme Court in the case of N. Harihara Krishnan Vs. J. Thomas reported in (2018) 13 SCC 663 has considered the concep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
