Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. Mr. R.K.P.Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the amendment in the plaint is imminent as, after framing of the issues, when the trial was yet to commence by aduction of evidence, it was noticed by the plaintiffs' learned counsel that there were some serious typographical errors in the plaint, which required correction for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties and, therefore, the petition seeking amendment was filed. He has submitted that the proposed amendments will not alter the nature of the suit, most of which are formal in nature to remove clerical errors, whereas some of them are merely explanatory, which would help proper Patna High Court C.Misc. No.307 of 2020(8) dt.05-07-2021 adjudication of the suit. He has contended that the Court below has completely failed to appreciate the legislative intent of Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which, according to him, is in two parts. He has submitted that the expression 'may' in first part confers discretion on the Court below to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings at any stage of proceedings in some cases. However, the expression 'shall', in the second part makes it obligatory for the Court to allow amendment when it is 'necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties'. He has further submitted that the Court below has rejected the application for amendment in the plaint on erroneous considerations and has miserably failed to appreciate that even the trial had not commenced. He has contended that the Court below has rejected the amendment petition on erroneous ground that the petitioners were repeatedly filing amendment petitions one after the other, in the absence of any legal bar for filing such petitions. He has further argued that the amendments sought are fundamentally of two nature, viz., (i) removal of typographical errors and (ii) for clarification and explanation of the plaintiffs' case as already made out in the plaint. He has urged that amendment if allowed, would not have Patna High Court C.Misc. No.307 of 2020(8) dt.05-07-2021 prejudiced the defendants' case in any manner as they would have had an opportunity to respond to the same by filing written statement.

24. Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that there is exception to the general rule of permitting the parties to amend their pleadings, which are: (i) amendment should not result into withdrawal of the admission, (ii) it should not be the purpose of delaying the trial and (iii) the amendments sought for should not be for malafide reasons. He has submitted that by seeking amendments, the plaintiffs are attempting to replace the entire Patna High Court C.Misc. No.307 of 2020(8) dt.05-07-2021 genealogical table upon which their case was based. He would contend that the petitioners cannot take plea of typographical errors in the genealogical table inasmuch as the genealogical table, as appended to the plaint, has been elaborately explained in the pleadings in the plaint. According to him, therefore, the plea that there were typographical errors in the plaint, which were sought to be removed by seeking amendment is wholly unacceptable. He has submitted that the proposed amendment in the plaint by the plaintiffs by replacing the genealogical table amounts to withdrawing the admissions in the plaint. He has urged that in the genealogical table, appended to the plaint, one Rohan Singh has been shown as the common ancestor, who had two sons Baidhyanath Singh and Modan Singh, whereas in the proposed amendments, said Baidyanath Singh and Modan Singh are being attempted to be described as brothers of said Rohan Singh.

(Underlined for emphasis)

37. The said decision has no application in the facts and circumstances and the points involved in the present case.

38. In all fairness to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, I must take note of a decision of this Court in case of Smt. Ahilya Devi (supra). Facts have been noted in the said case in paragraph 2, from which it appears that the plaintiff in that case had pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff and his younger brother separated in 1982 with mutual consent. An amendment was sought, however, to the effect that the figure '1982' had been inadvertently typed due to mistake, which ought to have been '1962'. In the facts and circumstances of that case, this Court held that since the evidence had not started, amendment at that stage could not possibly cause failure of justice and irreparable loss to the respondents, though converse was possible. In that circumstance, a plea of typographical error of trivial nature for permitting an amendment in the plaint was accepted.