Honble YAMIN, J.–This is a revision against the order dated 14.8.97 by which the learned Additional Civil Judge (JD) No.1, Jodhpur allowed an amendment in the plaint.

(2). I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties with their consent at the admission stage and have gone through the impugned order.

(3). Plaintiff respondent filed a suit for eviction of the tenant petitioner defendant. According to para No. 1 of the plaint the suit property was bearing No.10 and was situated in Janta Market, behind Stadium Ground, Jodhpur. On the upper storey of this plot there was a shop number of which was 19. After service of summons on defendant petitioner, he filed an application under Order 6 Rule 4 and 5 CPC and wanted to know further and better particulars. The plaintiff opposed this application and submitted that there was no ambiguity and the application was dismissed. Then the defendant submitted written statement in which he denied ex- istence of shop No.19 saying that there were only 14 shops at the site and number could not be 19. Thereafter the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint saying that the plaintiff as well as her power of attorney holder were illiterate and committed error when drafting the plaint. The learned lower Court after hearing both the parties allowed the amendment. According to this amendment the number of shop was 10.

(4). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial Judge committed an error of jurisdiction by allowing the amendment because once the defendant had sought further and better particulars and the plaintiff had opposed the application, there was an admission which could not be taken back by way of amendment. According to him a valuable right accrued to the petitioner which is being taken away by this amendment. He submitted that it may be possible that the plaintiff might have committed error by inadvertently writing a wrong number of shop but when the attention was drawn by the defendant and even then it was reiterated that the number of shop was correct, now the plaintiff respondent has no right to get the suit amended. Thus according to the learned counsel the trial Court has committed an error apparent on record. He cited Heeralal vs. Kalyan Mal & Ors. (1), in which it was observed that by amendment an admission cannot be allowed to be withdrawn if such withdrawal would amount to totally displacing the case of plaintiff and which would cause him irretrievable prejudice to the other party. The facts of this citation of Apex Court are different than one before me. Here the plaintiff had wrongly mentioned the number 19 of the shop while there are only 14 shops at the place where property is situated. The plaintiff and her power of attorney holder are illiterate persons and the mistake is bonafide. Besides the trial Court has compensated the defendant petitioner by payment of cost for the error committed by her.

(5). Learned counsel for the respondent cited Akshaya Restaurant vs. P. Anjanappa and Anr. (2), in which it has been observed that it is settled law that even an admission can be explained and an order can be interfered with only when there is material irregularity committed by the Court below in permitting amendment. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that by allowing this amendment the trial Court has curtailed the multiplicity of the suit. This is opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner by saying that the respondent can very well withdraw this suit and with permission to file another suit because a right has accrued to the petitioner defendant. I am of the view that there was no bar for such an amendment as was sought by the plaintiff in the given circumstances of this case. In Nand Kumar and Brothers & Anr. vs. Ram Prasad Rajak (3), cited by the learned counsel for the respondent, it has been held that the whole purpose of various provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure is to curtail the multiplicity of suits of hara

Click Here to Read the rest of this document