Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, plaintiff in a suit for specific performance (O.S. No. 132 of 2010) before the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayapura, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 19.01.2017 rejecting his application for amendment of the plaint (I.A. No. XXII). The suit was based on a registered agreement for sale of property. The plaint inadvertently mentioned the date of the agreement as '17.5.2010' instead of the correct date '12.05.2010'. During the trial, the plaintiff in his evidence stated the correct date as '12.05.2010', but the plaint continued to carry the wrong date. After the evidence was closed and the matter was pending for final arguments, the plaintiff filed the amendment application seeking to correct the typographical error. The Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the amendment was sought after the commencement of trial, citing the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The High Court, in its analysis, noted that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC prohibits amendments after the trial has commenced unless the court is satisfied that despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. However, the Court observed that the amendment sought was merely to correct a typographical error in the date of the agreement, which did not change the nature of the suit or cause any prejudice to the defendants. The Court emphasized that the correct date was already on record through the plaintiff's evidence and the registered agreement. The High Court held that the Trial Court's rejection was too technical and that the amendment was necessary for the proper determination of the real controversy between the parties. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint by correcting the date from '17.5.2010' to '12.05.2010'. The Court directed that the amendment be carried out within two weeks and that the defendants be given an opportunity to file an additional written statement, if desired.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Typographical Error - The plaintiff sought to correct the date of the agreement from '17.5.2010' to '12.05.2010' due to a typographical mistake. The Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the amendment was sought after the commencement of trial. The High Court held that the correction of a date does not change the nature of the suit and that the amendment was necessary to determine the real controversy. The Court allowed the amendment, observing that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants as the correct date was already mentioned in the evidence. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint to correct a typographical error in the date of the agreement, after the evidence was closed and the matter was pending for final arguments.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 19.01.2017, and permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint by correcting the date of the agreement from '17.5.2010' to '12.05.2010'. The amendment was to be carried out within two weeks, and the defendants were given liberty to file an additional written statement, if desired.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- typographical error
- correction of date
- no change in nature of suit
- liberal approach to amendment
- prejudice to opposite party
