Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurnam Singh vs Hari Mohan on 24 January, 2001
Author: Bakhshish Kaur
Bench: Bakhshish Kaur
JUDGMENT Bakhshish Kaur, J.
1. The challenge in this revision petition is to the impugned order dated August 10, 2000, as the plaintiff-respondents were allowed to amend the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
2. Hari Mohan and others had filed a suit for perma-nent injunction restraining Gurnam Singh, defendant from closing/blocking the Gali/Street/Passage shown as red in the site plan attached with the plaint and also from making construction over it. During the pen-dency of the suit, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC dated July 3,2000, seeking amendment to the plaint was filed. Later on, it revealed that inadvertently certain mistakes have crept in while describing the property by denoting it with letters. For instances, while describing the brick wall from point K to F, it has been wrongly typed as A to F. Similarly, while describing the wall from point K to L, it is wrongly typed as A to L and so on. The copy of this application is Annexure P-1. The trial Court had allowed the amendments in the application under Or-der 6 Rule 17 CPC, as prayed. The substantive argument raised by Mr. B.R. Mahajan, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Code of Civil Procedure no-where provides any provision in allowing a party to amend the application. In fact, the amendment can be allowed only in respect of the pleadings and the pleadings are nothing else but the plaint and the written statement. The trial Court was, therefore, in an error in allowing the amendments in the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
3. Admittedly, Order 6 Rule 17 CPC relates to the amendment of the pleadings and there is no specific provision contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby a party can apply for amendment of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. In such a situation, when there is no provision made in tin. Code for dealing with a particular situation, then inherent jurisdiction of the Court under the provisions of Section 151 CPC can be availed of by a party for making the matter more clear and specific, particularly, when a wrong appears to have been committed inadver-lently, as it has happened in the present case in hand. Advening to the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, Annexure P-1, vide which the plaintiff-respondents had sought amendment to the original application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC dated 3.7.2000, a careful reading of the same would reveal that certain alphabets have been wrongly mentioned by denoting the property in question. It will not be out of place to mention here that the pronouncement of some of these letters can be termed as similar. For instance, where it should have been mentioned as K to F, it has been typed as A to F. Again, where it was required to be mentioned and denoted as K to L, it is typed as A to L. The equity of justice, therefore, demands that to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court an amendment in the terms as prayed should be allowed. The trial Court has rightly exercised the power under Section 151 CPC and I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order.
4 In Kedar Prasad v. Raghunath Prasad, AIR 1992 Patna 95, though the amendment was allowed in the application under Order21 Rule 90 CPC, yet it was observed that the Court has power to allow the amendment of the application under its inherent power in appropriate cases for the ends of justice or for preventing abuse of the process of the Court. To hold otherwise would result in miscarriage of justice. Similar view was taken in Civil Revision No. 294 of 1990, decided by this Court on 9.3.1990, reported as Slier Singh v. Jagir Singh and others, 1990(1) RLR 351:1990(1) RRR 469 (P&H).
5. For the aforesaid reasons, there being no merit in this civil revision, the same is dismissed.
Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 31.1.2001.
6. Revision dismissed.