Udhey Verma vs Kamaljeet Singh

Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.—Respondent-plaintiff herein filed a suit for recovery against the petitioner-defendant. The respondent moved an application u/s 151 of the CPC (for short "the Code") stating that in the plaint, due to a typographical mistake, the name of the Company has been written as "Acme Infotech Welfare" whereas in fact, the correct name is "Acme Services Welfare Corporation". It was prayed that necessary correction to this effect may be allowed to be made in the plaint.

Trial Court by order dated 23.7.2004, allowed the application and ordered the correction to be made. The trial Court observed, "the amendment being formal in nature is not going to prejudice the defendant as the suit has been filed by the plaintiff in his individual name regarding the payments received by way of cheques by the defendant from the company. Hence, the correction of the name is necessary for the fair adjudication of the matter in dispute, same thus is allowed, but subject to costs of Rs. 500/- as costs." It is this order, which the petitioner-defendant has impugned in this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the impugned order, particularly to the words "the amendment being formal in nature" used by the trial Court while allowing the correction to be made, and vehemently submitted that once there is a specific provision for amendment i.e. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code, the trial Court in exercise of power u/s 151 of the Code could not allow the said correction.

The argument, though appears to be lucrative, but has no merit. At this stage, the provisions of Section 151 of the Code are noticed as under:

"Section 151. Saving of inherent powers of Court.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court." 5. A plain reading of the provisions of Section 151 clearly shows the Court has a power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. The correction sought to be made in the plaint by the respondent-plaintiff, in strict sense, was not amendment of any pleading or otherwise of any fact which would have changed the nature of the relief sought or the character of the suit. Moreover, no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the petitioner by the correction in question sought to be made in the plaint. It was merely a correction of the name of the company which was ordered to be made in the plaint and, therefore, such correction could certainly be sought by invoking the provisions of Section 151 of the Code, as a matter of fact, is a power inherent in the court by virtue of its duty to do justice between the parties before it. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, apparently being prompted by the words "the amendment being formal in nature" used by the trial Court in its order, has tried to make an issue out of nothing. No illegality or infirmity thus, could be pointed out by the counsel so as to warrant any interference with the impugned order.

In view of the above, the revision petition fails and is dismissed.