Reddy v Prakash Motors Ltd [2011] FJMC 166; Civil Case 57.2009 (28 November 2011)

IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT
AT LAUTOKA
IN THE WESTERN DIVISION

CIVIL JURISDICTION

CIVIL CASE NO.: 57 OF 2009

BETWEEN:

ANANTH REDDY
Plaintiff

AND:

PRAKASH MOTORS LIMITED
Defendant

For Plaintiff: Mr. Nandan

For Defendant: Mr. Koya

RULING

The Plaintiff filed a Writ of Summons on 12th May 2009 claiming general damages against the Defendant.

The Defendant filed its statement of defence in person, on 19th of September 2009.

The Plaintiff submits that the Defendant's statement of Defence is not limited to the Jurisdiction of the Court and therefore must be struck out.

The Defendant filed statement of defence in person and prayed:-

1) That the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim be struck out for want of prosecution with costs as it shows no cause of action;

2) To give judgment in favour of the Defendant for the sum of $1470.80 (One Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Dollars and Eighty Cents) as claimed in the Small Claims Tribunal action No. 351 of 2009 and

3) Interest at the rate of 13.5% per annum from 13th January, 2009 until the date of settlement.

4) General damages limited to maximum jurisdiction of this Court.

5) Special damages and any other relief as the Court deems just.

The Plaintiff submits that the prayer 03 and 05 are not limited to the Jurisdiction of the Court and therefore must be struck out.

In the Light of Order XIV of the Magistrates Court Rules, the Court can direct on its own motion or on the application of either party the amendment of the Statement of Defence "for the purpose of determining, in the existing suit, the real question or questions in controversy between the parties, shall be so made".

The order XIV of the Magistrates Court Rules read........

ORDER XIV. – AMENDMENT
Under what circumstances

1. The court may, at any stage of the proceedings, either of its own motion or on the application of either party, order any proceedings to be amended, whether the defect or error be that of the party applying to amend or not; and all such amendments as may be necessary or proper for the purpose of eliminating all statements which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit and for purpose of determining, in the existing suit, the real question or questions in controversy between the parties, shall be so made. Every such order shall be made upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as shall seem just.

The Defendant has filed the statement of defence in person. The Defendant lacks the knowledge, skill and expertise.

I am of the view that amendment will cause no prejudice to the Plaintiff.

CONCLUSION

The preliminary objection of the Plaintiff is disallowed.

The Defendant is allowed to amend the statement of defence under order XIV of the Magistrates Court Rules.

30 days to appeal

Dated at Lautoka on the 28th day of November 2011.

Jude Nanayakkara
Resident Magistrate

Magistrate Court-03
Lautoka.