JUDGMENT :

Prakash Gupta, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the Commercial Court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (for short, 'the plaintiff) under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed.

2. Facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money against the respondents-defendants (for short, 'the defendants'). The defendants filed their written statements. Thereafter issues were framed. The plaintiff filed an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC mentioning therein that inadvertently due to typographical error, in the cause title, words "owner of firm Ravi Kumar Nirmal Kumar" were not mentioned in furtherance of the name of defendant No. 2, which has been dismissed by the Commercial court vide order dated 16.12.2019. Hence this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that defendant Manish Kediya is the owner of various firms which are being run in different names. He further submits that the bills, description of which were given in the plaint, are related to firm "Ravi Kumar Nirmal Kumar" and those bills were available on record. However, inadvertently due to typographical error, in the cause title, words "owner of firm Ravi Kumar Nirmal Kumar" were not mentioned in furtherance of the name of defendant No. 2. The fact that the incorrect cause title was filed due to typographical error is well established from the bills themselves, which are available on record. He prayed that in this view of the matter, the amendment sought for was necessary for effective adjudication of the controversy involved in the matter and no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties as the trial of the suit has not commenced and on account of the amendment sought for, defence of the defendants would also not to be changed. The plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which has been dismissed by the Commercial Court in an arbitrary and illegal manner.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents-defendants (for short, "the defendants") have opposed the same and submit that the plaintiff had filed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC in order to delay the proceedings in the suit. They submit that if the amendment, as sought for, is allowed, it would change the nature of the suit. Hence the impugned order passed by the Commercial Court is just and reasonable and no interference therewith is required by this Court.

5. Heard. Considered.

6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M Revanna vs. Anjanamma (Dead) by Lrs. and others reported in AIR 2019 (SC) 940, has held that:

"Though normally amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the Court needs to take into consideration whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide and whether the amendment causes such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money."

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahila Ramkali Devi & Ors. Vs. Nandram (Dead) through Legal Representatives & Ors., reported in (2015) 13 SCC 132 has again reiterated the basic principles, which are to be kept in mind while considering such applications in Paragraphs 20, 21 and 22, which are quoted as below:-

"20. It is well settled that rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of rules of procedure. The court always gives relief to amend the pleading of the party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide or that by his blunder he had caused injury to his opponent which cannot be compensated for by an order of cost.

21. In our view, since the appellant sought amendment in Para 3 of the original plaint, the High Court ought not to have rejecte