The court emphasized the liberal exercise of discretion in allowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. and highlighted the wide powers granted to cure defective pleadings or drafting mistakes.

1. The petitioner herein is the defendant.

2. The respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of the money on the basis of a promissory note executed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed a written statement denying both execution of the promissory note and borrowing of any sum from the respondent. In the suit, trial commenced and P.W.1 was examined in chief and cross. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application to amend the date of the promissory note as 1.10.1996, as it was wrongly mentioned in the plaint that the date of the promissory note was 12.10.1996. Opposing this application, the petitioner filed a counter. However, the trial Court allowed the application for amendment. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.

3. Mr. R. Gandhi, the learned senior counsel representing the counsel on record, while assailing the impugned order, would submit that by the amendment in the date of promissory note as 1.10.1996, while all the documents referred to in the suit and deposition of P.W.1 would show the date of the promissory note as 12.10.1996, would change the entire cause of action and as such, the new case had been permitted to be introduced and hence, the impugned order has got to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, Mr. N. Manokaran, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that the date mentioned as 12.10.1996 in the plaint is purely a type mistake and on the basis of the said pleading, P.W.1, the plaintiff/respondent has mentioned wrongly in his deposition as 12.10.1996, whereas the documents filed along with the plaint would show the correct date as 1.10.1996 and as such, the impugned order allowing the petition for amendment is perfectly justified.

5. Both the counsel would refer to various citations in support of their respective pleas.

6. Before considering the merits of the contentions urged by the counsel for the parties, let us now see the various guidelines given by the High Courts as well as the Supreme Court with regard to the powers to be exercised by the Courts for allowing the amendment petition, while invoicing Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which are as follows:

(A) The amendment should not be refused on technical ground. The rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of the justice and parties should not be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure.

(B) The Courts always give leave to amend the pleading of the party unless they are satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide or that by his blunder he has caused injury to his opponent, which may not be compensated by an order of costs.

(C) Under the cover of seeking amendment, it is not open to any party to substitute a new cause of action or to change the nature of the suit or to substitute the subject-matter of the suit except when the Court thinks it just and necessary.

(D) The law is well settled that the discretion of the Courts in the matter of amendment of pleadings are to be liberally exercised. However, the amendment should not be allowed which would result in injustice to other side.

(E) Even if a party or its counsel is inefficient in setting out its case initially, the shortcoming can certainly be removed generally by appropriate steps taken by the party which must no doubt pay costs for the inconvenience or expense caused to the other side from its omissions.

(F) Defective pleadings are generally curable if the cause of action sought to be brought out was not ab initio completely absent.

(G) Even very defective pleadings may be permitted to be cured, so as to constitute a cause of action where there was none, provided necessary conditions, such as payment of either any additional court fees, which may be payable or, of costs of the other side are complied with.

(H) The Court is required to see whether the amendment is necessary for arriving at just and fair decision for r