Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 52 — CIVIL ACTIONS · Chapter 896 — Civil Process, Service and Time for Return
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-72 (2026)

Amendment of process

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(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. Return date of a summary process action may be amended to correct failure to return the complaint at least three days before the return date as required by Sec. 47a-23a. 191 CA 842.

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

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36 cases, 1967–2020 · leading case: Concept Assocs., Ltd. v. Bd. of Tax Review, 642 A.2d 1186 (Conn. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Concept Assocs., Ltd. v. Bd. of Tax Review, 642 A.2d 1186 (Conn. 1994). · cites it 29× “General Statutes § 52-72 provides in relevant part: “(a) Any court shall allow a proper amendment to civil process which has been made returnable to the wrong return day or is for any other reason defective, upon payment of costs taxable upon sustaining a plea in abatement.”
Coppola v. Coppola, 707 A.2d 281 (Conn. 1998). · cites it 25× “The dispositive issue in this certified appeal is whether, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-72, 1 the return date of civil process can be amended to *659 correct the plaintiffs failure to return the process at least six days before the return date as required by General…”
Olympia Mortg. Corp. v. Klein, 763 A.2d 1055 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 19× “The plaintiff claims that the court improperly granted the motion to dismiss the complaint because it failed *306 to allow the plaintiff to amend its civil process pursuant to General Statutes § 52-72 (a) 1 to cure the defect in the process made returnable more than two months…”
Haigh v. Haigh, 717 A.2d 837 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 15× “The plaintiff in effect maintains that the incorrect Monday return date is an “insufficiency of process” defect that is curable and that the procedure provided by General Statutes § 52-72 9 supports his position.”
Willamette Mgmt. Assocs., Inc. v. Palczynski, 38 A.3d 1212 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 11× “The court ruled that subject matter jurisdiction was not implicated and that the issue was governed by General Statutes § 52-72, 6 and thus it was a defect that was curable by amendment.”
Galluzzo v. Bd. of Tax Review, 666 A.2d 841 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1995). · cites it 16× “The plaintiffs ask this court to set aside a dismissal to allow them to amend their civil process in this matter under General Statutes § 52-72. 1 The court had previously dismissed the plaintiffs’ case since process was not served twelve days before the return day under General…”
Hartford Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Tucker, 423 A.2d 141 (Conn. 1979). · cites it 5× “2d 912 (1945); it is clear that an amendment could be entertained beyond the sixty-day limit to cure the minor defect in the writ, and without requiring a new service of process under General Statutes § 52-72. Section 52-72 requires the new service of the writ and process when…”
Fedus v. Plan. & Zoning Comm'n, 900 A.2d 1 (Conn. 2006). · cites it 4× “For example, General Statutes § 52-72 16 requires the trial court to allow a proper amendment to defective process.”
Kobyluck v. Plan. & Zoning Comm'n, 852 A.2d 826 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 8× “The applicable provision is General Statutes § 52-72. 11 The purpose of § 52-72 “is to provide *168 for amendment of otherwise incurable defects that go to the court’s jurisdiction.”
Merrill v. NRT New England, Inc., 12 A.3d 575 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 9× “2 The plaintiff s counsel indicated that he changed the return date because the marshal did not return process to him until after the sixth day preceding July 22, 2008, making it impossible for counsel to file it with the court six days prior to the return date in accordance…”
Heussner v. Hayes, 961 A.2d 365 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 7× “6 The plaintiff opposed the motions and concurrently filed motions to amend process in the Superior Court, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-72, 7 attempting to correct the defects alleged by the conservators, noting that the defective return date had been set by the Probate…”
Andover LP I v. Bd. of Tax Review, 655 A.2d 759 (Conn. 1995). · cites it 4× “9 We concluded that amendment of process to correct a return date must be permitted as a remedial measure under General Statutes § 52-72. 10 Id., 623. In addition, we concluded that the language “[a]ny court shall allow a proper amendment to civil process” is mandatory rather…”
Show all 36 citing cases →
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-72(a) — 1 case
Prenderville v. Sinclair, 138 A.3d 336 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.