The main legal point established is the court's emphasis on allowing necessary amendments to decide the real issue in controversy between the parties and protecting the right of the respondent to prosecute the claim.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The impugned order dated 6th April, 2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ") in CS DJ 3383/2017 (Vijay Kapoor v. Gopi Chand) allows two applications of the respondent and dismisses one application of the petitioner.

2. The applications of the respondent, allowed by the impugned order, were preferred under Order VI Rule 17 and Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("the CPC"), whereas the application of the petitioner, which stands dismissed by the impugned order, invoked Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

3. CS DJ 3383/2017 was instituted by the respondent against the petitioner, claiming damages from the petitioner for having subjected the respondent to malicious prosecution by allegedly registering, against the respondent, a false First Information Report (FIR), resulting in, inter alia, the respondent having to remain incarcerated for a protracted period of time and to face a trial which, according to the respondent, was completely without basis.

4. The said FIR, subsequently, came to be quashed by this Court vide order dated 3rd November, 2016.

5. As it happened, the plaint, as originally preferred by the respondent, made reference to an FIR registered by the respondent against the petitioner at PS Patel Nagar, Central District. It also stated that the cause of action, for filing the suit, arose on 30th January, 2008.

6. The petitioner, in his written statement, filed by way of response to the suit, completely disowned any connection with the FIR registered at PS Patel Nagar or with any event which took place on 30th January, 2008. It was alleged, inter alia, that the FIR on the basis of which the suit was filed did not implicate the petitioner in any manner.

7. The respondent, thereafter, moved two applications, under Order VI Rule 17 and Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC.

8. In the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, filed through learned Counsel, it was submitted that, as the respondent had filed the plaint in person, certain errors had crept into the plaint. Specifically, the details of the FIR, on the basis of which the plaint had been filed, had erroneously been entered and the details regarding quashing of the FIR by this Court were required to be incorporated.

9. Paras 3 to 8 of the Order VI Rule 17 application of the respondent read thus:

"3. That the plaintiff in original suit the respective Para No.8 & 9 about the Jurisdiction and Limitation were not formulated and did not disclose the same properly. The extract of paras no.8 & 9 are reproduced for kind perusal of Hon'ble Court as follows:

5. That the aforesaid mistakes were occurred by the plaintiff due to fact that he was unrepresented through legal representation at the time of filing suit.

6. That the plaintiff wants to amend the suit to the extent to include the amend the legal paras of original suit i.e. Para No.8 & 9.

7. That Plaintiffs wants to amend the following Para as Para No.8 & 9 in place of Para No.8 & 9 of original suit in following manner-