IMPORTANT POINT
The defect of non-filing of the statement of truth in a plaint can be curable, and the court may allow the amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 63210/2023 (for exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

CM(M) 2009/2023 & CM APPL. 63211/2023

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India impugns the order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the District Judge (Commercial Court)-02, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (`Trial Court') in CS (COMM.) No. 454/2019, titled as `M/s SSR International v. Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. and Anr.', whereby the Petitioner's application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC') seeking amendment of the plaint after the conclusion of the final arguments, has been dismissed by the Trial Court.

1.1. The Petitioner is the plaintiff and the Respondent is the defendant. The suit has been filed seeking recovery of Rs.5,29,507.50/- from the Respondent.

2. The Petitioner appears in person and has addressed the arguments. He states that the plaint was registered on 26.11.2019 and was duly accompanied with a supporting affidavit, however, no statement of truth was filed as the suit was instituted as an ordinary suit.

2.1. He states that the said suit was listed before the ADJ-01, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, on 26.11.2019, wherein the said Court marked the suit as a commercial matter and issued notice to the Respondents. He states that the suit was thereafter transferred on two different occasions i.e., on 06.02.2020 and on 03.09.2022, however, it was not pointed to the Petitioner that the plaint is defective as it is not accompanied with the statement of truth.

2.2. He states that counsel for the defendant failed to raise the objection that the plaint is liable to rejected, at the threshold for the non-filing of the statement of truth along with the plaint. He states that it was during the course of final arguments that an objection was raised that the plaint instituted on 25.11.2019 was not with provision of Order VI Rule 15A of CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

2.3. He states that in view of the said objection, an application was moved by the Petitioner under Order VII Rule 10A read with Section 151 of CPC seeking return of plaint along with all ancillary documents and court fees to enable the Petitioner to file a fresh suit. He states that however, the said application was dismissed by the Trial Court on 10.07.2023 along with legal costs of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited with Legal Aid, Karkardooma Courts. He states that the said costs have been deposited by the Petitioner.

2.4. He states that in these circumstances, the Petitioner filed the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on 10.08.2023 seeking a limited amendment in the plaint at paragraph 47 and to enclose the statement of truth in support of the plaint.

3. Learned counsel for the Respondent enters appearance on advance service. He states that since final arguments have already been heard and judgment stands reserved, there is no infirmity in the impugned order of the Trial Court dismissing the Petitioner's application.

3.1. He, however, fairly admits that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Prayag Polytechnic vs. Raj Kumar Tulsian, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6058, this defect in the plaint is curable.

3.2. He states that the Respondent does not propose to file any amended written statement to the amended plaint.

3.3. He states that, however, to balance the rights of the parties, the Petitioner may be permitted to amend the plaint to the extent prayed for in the application without re-opening the rights of either party to re-argue the matter afresh, since the amendment proposed is formal in nature.

4. In reply, the Petitioner states that he has no objection to the said submission of the Respondent and the only purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the plaint is not rejected on account of the non-filing of the statement of truth.

5. This Court has considered the submissions of th