(a) Upon payment of taxable costs, any court shall allow a proper amendment to civil process which is for any reason defective.

(b) Such amended process shall be served in the same manner as other civil process and shall have the same effect, from the date of the service, as if originally proper in form.

(c) If the court, on motion and after hearing, finds that the parties had notice of the pendency of the action and their rights have not been prejudiced or affected by reason of the defect, any attachment made by the original service and the rights under any lis pendens shall be preserved and continued from the date of service of the original process as though the original process had been in proper form. A certified copy of the finding shall be attached to and served with the amended process.

(1949 Rev., S. 7793; P.A. 82-160, S. 26; P.A. 12-133, S. 17.)

History: P.A. 82-160 rephrased the section and inserted Subsec. indicators; P.A. 12-133 amended Subsec. (a) by providing that upon payment of taxable costs, any court shall allow a proper amendment to civil process which is for any reason defective and by deleting references to “process which has been made returnable to the wrong return day” and “upon payment of costs taxable upon sustaining a plea in abatement”.

See Sec. 52-130 re amendments of defects, mistakes or informalities in pleadings, record or proceedings.

Fact that process may be amended to cure defect is not ground for refusal to sustain plea in abatement. 131 C. 658. Cited. 178 C. 472; 227 C. 913; 228 C. 914. Section is mandatory; judgment of Appellate Court in 31 CA 793 reversed. 229 C. 618. Cited. 232 C. 392; 236 C. 681. Provision should be liberally construed in favor of those whom legislature intended to benefit; provision allows amendment to correct a late return of process. 243 C. 657. Under 2009 revision, plaintiff's failure to attach a summons or citation to the complaint was a substantive defect in the service of process and was not the type of technical defect that is amendable pursuant to section. 308 C. 180.

Cited. 18 CA 488; 23 CA 188; 31 CA 793; judgment reversed, see 229 C. 618; 33 CA 6; judgment reversed, see 228 C. 914. Intent is to prevent loss of jurisdiction merely because of defect of return date. 50 CA 456. Although Sec. 52-48 sets forth 2-month time limitation for return of process, the legislature, by enacting this section, clearly provided parties an avenue to correct a procedural error concerning such process. 61 CA 305. The date process is returned to court is an historical fact that is substantive in nature and is not amendable pursuant to section. 157 CA 617.

Cited. 18 CS 482; 29 CS 289; 40 CS 243; 44 CS 39.