SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(RAJ) 1129

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Mr. Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J
LIAQAT KHAN SON OF LATE SHRI RAHIM KHAN – Appellant
Versus
SMT. MUMTAZ D/O LATE SHRI RAHIM KHAN – Respondent
CW / 18831 / 2024



Advocates:
For Petitioner(s):Mr. M C Jain For Respondent(s): Mr. Farooq Ahmed

Amendments to correct typographical errors in pleadings should be allowed as they do not affect the substance of the case.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 - Application for amendment of written statement - Defendants sought to amend their written statement to correct typographical errors regarding shares in property - Trial Court dismissed the application, ruling it would cause substantial change - Court found the dismissal erroneous as amendments were merely for typographical corrections. (Paras 1-5)

(B) Amendment of pleadings - The court held that amendments should be allowed to correct minor errors that do not change the substance of the case. (Para 5)

Facts of the case:
Defendants filed an application to amend their written statement due to typographical errors in the shares of disputed property, which the trial Court dismissed, prompting the defendants to seek judicial review.

Findings of Court:
The trial Court's dismissal was erroneous and the defendants' amendments should be accepted.

Issues: The main issue was whether the typographical errors in the defendants' written statement constituted a substantial change warranting dismissal of the amendment application.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that typographical errors should be corrected as they do not affect the substance of the case, and the trial Court erred in its dismissal.

Result: Petition allowed, and the trial Court's order set aside.

Order :

1. This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the order dated 07.11.2024 passed by Additional District Judge, Fatehpur Shekhawati, Sikar in civil suit No. 139/2016, whereby the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the defendants under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC .

2. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) has filed a suit for partition, rendition of accounts and permanent injunction against the defendants in which defendants filed an application before the trial Court under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking permission to amend their written statement on account of typographical error crept therein. Due to typographical error, Rahim Khan’s share in disputed property was wrongly typed 1/5th instead of 1/4th. Defendants have also filed their written statement wherein it was typed as defendant Nos. 1 to 7 instead of defendant Nos.1 to 5. So, these are typographical error but the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that on account of said amendment no substantial change shall took place. So, the order dated 07.11.2024 passed by the trial Court be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants and submits that on account of amendment as sought, there would be substantial change in the written statement of the defendants. So, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. So, the present petition filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff.

5. It is an admitted position that the defendants had sought amendments on account of typographical error. So, in my considered opinion, trial Court had committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants. So, the order dated 07.11.2024 passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside.

6. Accordingly, the petition filed by the defendants is allowed and the order dated 07.11.2024 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the trial Court is directed to take the defendants’ amendments in the written statement on record. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top