Avinash Rameshkumar Galani & Another vs Anamika Agnihotri & 2 Others, civil application No 147 of 2023.

This case Was about the issue of amendment of judgement and rulling application done by the section below and court granted an application.

By a chamber summons made under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap. 33, R.E. 2019 (the CPC), AVINAS RAMESHKUMAR GALANI and KISSHORI MUKESH MAGANLAL, the applicants, have moved the Court to be pleased to amend its judgment and decree in Civil Cause No. 4 of 2022 by rectifying the name of the 3rd respondent and issue a rectified judgment and decree. Supporting the application is an affidavit deposed by Ms. Magreth Joseph Magebbo, learned advocate for the applicant.

I have gone through the record of Civil Cause No. 4 of 2022 and this application. Having done so, I am satisfied that 3rd respondent in Civil Cause No. 4 of 2022 is ATVANTIC GROUP (T) LIMITED. That fact is not disputed in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. Given that 

there was no amendment as to the names of the parties, the name,ATVANTIC GROUP (T) LIMITED ought to have featured in the counsent judgment and decree. 

In their counter-affidavit and submission made by their counsel, the respondents do not dispute that there is accidental slip of the pen in the juidgment and decree in which the 3rd respondent was named “ATVANTIC GROUP LIMITED (T) COMPANY” in lieu of ATVANTIC GROUP (T) LIMITED.

 In that regard, I agree with the learned counsel for the applicant that this Court is enjoined to correct or rectify the said anomaly under section 96 of the CPC. Having dismissed 

the prelimary objection, I find no need of considering Mr. Luoga’s contention that the application is incompetent for being time barred.