Karunendra Singh vs Brijendra Singh and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—By means of this petition, the Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) has challenged the order dated 15.11.2010 whereby the application filed by the Plaintiff for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed. Alongwith the plaint, the Plaintiff had filed a site plan and in this site plan the suit land was shown to be a part of Phati Khokhan Kothi Maharaja. This fact was also mentioned in para 7 of the plaint.

By means of this application for amendment, all that is sought is that Phati is not Khokhan, but Mohal and Kothi is Khokhan not Maharaja. In the original plaint it was stated that the land comprised in Phati Khokhan Kothi Maharaja, Tehsil & District Kullu and the same fact was written by the architect in the site plan, whereas the land is actually Phati Mohal Kothi Khokhan. This amendment does not in any manner change the nature of the suit. If a mistake had been done by the architect or the counsel, why should the party suffer for the same? The approach of the learned Trial Court to say the least was hyper technical.

It is also evident from the record that on 6th August, 2010 when this application was filed, the Plaintiff�s witnesses were present. The Court should have recorded the evidence of the witnesses who were present and could have decided the application later. The matter was adjourned without recording the statement of the witnesses. No doubt, this application has been filed after framing of the issues, but this is an error which is sought to be corrected and the error is of the architect and the counsel. Therefore, the petition is allowed and the order of the learned Trial Court is set aside and the application for amendment is allowed. This is subject to payment of Rs. 2000/- as costs. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.