Case Note & Summary
The present writ petition was filed by the original defendant challenging the order of the trial court allowing the plaintiff's application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The respondent/original plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of contract based on an agreement of sale dated 03.10.2007 concerning property bearing Gat No. 159 to the extent of 1H 20R. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application seeking amendment in the plaint and also in the agreement of sale, to correct the gat number from 159 to 459. The trial court allowed the application. The petitioner/defendant contended that the court had no jurisdiction to allow amendment in the agreement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, and that no reasons were given for allowing the amendment. The respondent/plaintiff argued that the court had authority under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 to rectify the instrument, and relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Puranram v. Bhaguram (2008 B.C.I. 181) and Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur v. Kamla Town Trust (AIR 1996 SC 620). The High Court held that the trial court had jurisdiction to allow the amendment in the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, and also had power under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act to rectify the agreement of sale. The court found that the amendment did not change the nature of the suit and was necessary to determine the real controversy. The petition was dismissed, and the order of the trial court was upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - Court has power to allow amendment in plaint to correct description of property - The plaintiff sought to change gat number from 159 to 459 in plaint and agreement - Held that amendment in plaint is permissible under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (Paras 2-3). B) Specific Relief - Rectification of Instrument - Section 26 Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Court has jurisdiction to rectify agreement of sale if there is mutual mistake or fraud - The plaintiff sought amendment in the agreement itself - Held that the court can allow amendment in the agreement under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to allow amendment in the agreement of sale under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order of the trial court allowing the amendment is upheld.
Law Points
- Amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
- Rectification of instrument under Section 26 Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Court's jurisdiction to allow amendment in agreement
