Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chain Singh Digpal vs Smt. Hari Bai Mehra on 20 January, 2016
WP-18728-2015
(CHAIN SINGH DIGPAL Vs SMT. HARI BAI MEHRA)
20-01-2016
Mr.Dinesh Koshal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.S.K.Dubey, learned counsel for respondents.
With the consent of learned counsel for parties, matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of order dated 01/10/2015 by which the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure preferred by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint has been rejected on the ground of delay as well as on the ground that it will change the nature of the suit.
I have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the record. From perusal of record, it is evident that the petitioner has filed a suit seeking relief of specific performance of contract. After evidence of plaintiff was over the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint seeking to correct typographical error in respect of the property.
The aforesaid submission has been rejected by the Trial Court inter alia on the ground that the same has not been filed for due diligence and it will change the nature of the suit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the description of the suit property which is sought to be incorporated by way of amendment has been admitted by the defendants, he would not lead any evidence.
On the other hand learned counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that amendment is highly belated and it will change the nature of the suit. It is further submitted that by way of amendment the agreement to sale cannot be amended.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for parties and have perused the record. It is well settled in law that just and proper amendment which is necessary for a fair and complete adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit. In Rajkumar Gurawara Vs. S.K.Sarwagi and Company Private Ltd and anothr, 2008(14) SCC 364, it has been held that amendment which is proper amendment can be introduced at any stage for the purpose of determining the controversy involved in the suit. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal position, facts of the case may be seen.
In the instant case, the defendants have not disputed the survey number of the land which is sought to be incorporated by way of amendment by defendants as not leading any evidence and if the application for amendment is allowed no prejudice would be caused to the defendants. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the Trial Court. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial Court suffers from error apparent on the face of record and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, it is hereby quashed.
Accordingly the Writ Petition stands allowed. Certified copy as per rules.
(ALOK ARADHE) JUDGE