Krishan vs Jagdish

S.P. Bangarh, J.—Petitioner, herein, is defendant no. 1 in the suit for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property, that has been filed by the respondent no. 1, herein. In that suit, petitioner no. 1 moved application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC (''C.P.C.'' for short) averring, therein, that he has wrongly mentioned word ''khor'' instead of ''gher'' in the plaint and this mistake was repeated in para nos. 1,2,4,7 and 9. He further averred that since the plaint was drafted by some other Advocate, whereas, the present counsel joined at the later stage, therefore, despite due diligence, he could not find out this clerical error. The respondent no. 1 (plaintiff) prayed for allowing amendment in the plaint for correction of typographical errors, as also, in order to avoid any kind of confusion in respect of the suit property. This application was opposed by the petitioner by filing reply, thereto, averring, therein, that the application has been filed at a very belated stage and, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed, as the respondent no. 1 has clearly specified the dimensions and measurement of the suit property. It was further averred that affidavit in the support of plaint, Ex. PW1/A was filed, wherein, the property was mentioned as ''gher'' measuring 40 feet x 30 feet including ''khor'', hand pump, toilets and varanda etc. Besides, the evidence led by the respondent no. 1 also proves that the suit property is ''gher'' and not the ''khor''. Consequently, prayer for dismissal of the application was made. After hearing both the sides, the trial Court vide order dated 31.10.2013, allowed he application.

Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner, who is defendant no. 1 before the trial Court, has come up in this revision with prayer for acceptance, thereof, and for setting aside of the impugned order and for dismissal of application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC of the respondent no. 1, that was allowed by the trial Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire nature of the suit shall be changed. He also contended that this suit is at the fag end and, therefore, application for amendment of the plaint should not have been allowed by the trial Court.

Thoughtful consideration has been given to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but there is no merit, therein, as the proposed amendment which is clerical in nature is not going to change the nature of the suit. The suit property shall remain the same whose site plan has already been filed. It appears that due to inadvertence, in place of word ''gher'' word ''khor'' was typed in the plaint at certain places. Even, as per affidavit Ex. PW1/A, respondent no. 1 mentioned the suit property as ''gher'', according to the reply filed by the petitioner that finds mention in para 3 of the impugned order that the evidence led by the respondent no. 1 also shows that the suit property is ''gher'' and not the ''khor''.

It is, no doubt, true, that after the commencement of trial, amendment in the pleadings cannot be allowed, but this amendment is simply a rectification of certain typographical errors which were noticed at the fag end of the case, though, in the evidence, respondent no. 1 described the suit property as ''gher''. The proposed amendment is not going to change the nature of the suit, which shall also not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. At the most, if he wanted to file any amended written statement to the amended plaint, for that purpose, he could seek adjournment, but that has not been done, that is still open to him.

There is, thus, no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order and the same is, hereby, upheld and affirmed. Resultantly, the revision fails and is, hereby, dismissed.