IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the Court's discretion to allow the correction of typographical errors in the prayer clause of the amended petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the order dated 02.05.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge-05, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "Trial Court") in CS/SCJ No.326108/2014 titled as "Anwar Khan vs. Moinuddin & Ors". The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants before the learned Trial Court.

2. The petitioner had filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter "CPC") seeking amendment of prayer clause in the original plaint which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. The relevant facts for disposal of present petition are that the petitioner has filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction as well as damages against the respondent. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent nos.1 to 4 in connivance with the respondent no.5 arbitrarily disconnected the electricity meter of the petitioner, due to which the shop of the petitioner remained shut from 28.06.2011, causing him huge economic loss.

3. After the restoration of the meter, on 01.08.2015, the respondent nos.1 to 4 forcibly entered the shop of the petitioner and assaulted him, after which they tried to burn down the shop. The petitioner states that since 01.08.2015, he has not been able to work out of the said shop due to defendant nos.1 to 4 and is therefore seeking damages for a time period from 01.08.2015 to 31.03.2022 amounting to 3655 days at Rs.2,000/- per day.

4. Vide the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the petitioner sought to amend the existing prayer clause (a), (b) and (c) of the plaint. However, the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order stated that the prayer clauses could not be amended without amending the pleadings in the plaint and subsequently dismissed the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Being aggrieved with the order, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this court vide the present petition.

5. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he only seeks to press prayer clause (c) of the application vis-a-vis damages from the respondent no.5 with respect to his amendment application. The learned counsel submits that a typographical error had been made, which ought to have been rectified and the learned Trial Court has erred in deleting respondent no.5 from the array of parties and consequently disallowed the petitioner to amend clause (c) of the prayer clause.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent no.5 disconnected the electricity connection which is in violation of the provisions of Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Further, compliance with Section 43 of the Electricity Act was not made despite the suit bearing No.381/2011 being filed.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that that BSES Yamuna Power Ltd have averred in their written statement that the Enforcement team inspected the residential portion of Zahiruddin (father of the respondent no.1/now deceased) at first floor of 2625, Baradari, Ballimaran, Delhi and found that the user Zahiruddin was indulging in illegal tapping of electricity using an electric wire, thus the user was booked for the offence and a direct theft bill amounting to Rs.1.42 Lakhs with due date of 27.04.2007 was raised in his name. However, the user expired and had not paid the aforesaid amount in the bill raised. Thereafter, once the connection was re-installed on 18.02.2011, the BSES Yamuna Power Ltd and respondent no. 5 insisted the petitioner to pay the aforesaid bill amount and thereafter did not restore the electricity connection of the petitioner.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent no.5 while opposing the submissions, states that the petitioner never sought declaration of the theft bill as null and void from the Special Electricity Court thereby making the present suit not maintainable. Till the dues are not cleared by the petitioner being the