Jharkhand High Court
Sangita Devi vs Rang Bahadur Sharma And Ors on 13 August, 2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (C) No. 916 of 2014
SANGITA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF SRI BINDESHWARI MAHATO,
WIFE OF JAMINDAR MAHATO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
BHUDA, P.O. DHANBAD P.S. DHANSAR, DISTRICT DHANBAD
...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. RANG BAHADUR SHARMA, SON OF LATE BABULAL
SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHUDA, P.O. DHANBAD, P.S.
DHANSAR, DISTRICT DHANBAD
2. MD. SIRAJUDDIN, SON OF LATE ATTA HUSSAIN, RESIDENT
OF GAJUATAND, P.O. DHANBAD, P.S. DHANSAR, DISTRICT
DHANBAD ....... RESPONDENTS
3. BINDESHWARI MAHTO, SON OF LATE KALICHARAN
MAHATO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHUDA, P.O. DHANBAD, P.S.
DHANSAR, DISTRICT DHANBAD
....... PROFORMA RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. RISHAV KAMAL, ADV.
05/ Dated: 13th August, 2015
Per SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J.
Aggrieved by order dated 09.12.2013 in Title Suit No.99 of 2003, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. The petitioner is defendant no.2 in Title Suit No.99 of 2003, which was instituted for a decree of specific performance of agreement dated 19.04.2003. After the defendants filed written statement, application dated 23.05.2013 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment in plaint, was filed. The said application has been allowed by order dated 09.12.2013.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the suit has gone in trial, ordinarily, amendment in pleadings 2 should not be allowed. It is contended that though amendment in written statement can be allowed at any stage, application seeking amendment in plaint cannot be allowed after the suit is fixed for evidence.
4. In application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the plaintiffs took a plea that while preparing examinationinchief on affidavit, it was detected that description of the suit plot and the consideration amount were wrongly typed in the plaint. The plaintiffs pleaded that the correct plot number is "966" whereas, inadvertently, it has been typed as "996". The consideration amount has also been wrongly typed inasmuch as, in place of Rs.5,40,000/, inadvertently, Rs.5,40,100/ has been typed. It is not disputed that a copy of agreement dated 19.04.2003 is on record. It is not the case pleaded by the petitioner that the description of plot number and consideration amount sought to be corrected, are contrary to the descriptions disclosed in agreement dated 19.04.2003. The trial court has held that the proposed amendment is formal in nature and it will not change the nature and character of the suit. Accordingly, the application for amendment was allowed.
5. I find no error in the impugned order dated 09.12.2013 and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) R.K.