Maseena v. Sahud and Another – sllr 2003 volume 3 page 109

In the case between the 1st plaintiff (former husband) and 2nd plaintiff (lessee) as respondents, and the former wife as the defendant–petitioner, the court addressed whether the plaint was properly constituted, specifically considering misjoinder of parties and the authority of the court to allow amendments ex mero motu following amendments to the Civil Procedure Code. It was determined that the trial court erred in ordering the return of the plaint for amendment on its own motion after the date fixed for trial, as the relevant statutory provisions, particularly section 93(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (as amended by Act, No. 9 of 1991), had removed such judicial authority without a party’s application. The decision relied on statutory interpretation and precedent, reaffirming that amend