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

1990 Supreme(P&H) 435

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.L.Bahri, J.
Tarlok Singh
Versus
Parsinno
of,
Civil Revision No. 3101 of 1989,
Decided On : JULY 10, 1990

Typographical errors in the written statement can be rectified by amendment under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC if the amendment does not introduce a fresh plea or jeopardize the vested rights of the opposite party.

Headnote:

AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS - ORDER 6, RULE 17, CPC - TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR - COURT'S DISCRETION - Typographical errors in the written statement can be rectified by amendment under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) if the amendment does not introduce a fresh plea or jeopardize the vested rights of the opposite party.

Fact of the Case:

The defendants filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC seeking to amend their written statement to rectify typographical errors. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the defendants had not filed an amended written statement or amended paragraphs of the written statement along with the application.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court allowed the revision petition and permitted the proposed amendment in the written statement subject to payment of costs. The court held that the provisions of the CPC are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to be treated as a hindrance in the administration of justice.

Issues: Whether the defendants could amend their written statement to rectify typographical errors under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC without filing an amended written statement or amended paragraphs of the written statement along with the application.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC were not strictly complied with by the defendants by making an application for amendment, in as far as no amended written statement or amended paragraphs of the written statement were submitted. However, the court held that this technicality could not be a ground to deny the amendment if otherwise the defendants were entitled to get the mistake rectified by amendment. The court further held that the amendment did not introduce a fresh plea or jeopardize the vested rights of the plaintiff and that the opposite party could suitably be compensated by way of costs.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petition and permitted the proposed amendment in the written statement subject to payment of costs.

Judgment

, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order dated December 23, 1988, passed by Sub-Judge 1st Class, Batala, rejecting application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendants for amendment of the written statement.

2. In the written statement, originally, para 3, as mentioned, reads as under :-

- "that para No.3 is wrong and is strongly denied. The deceased Shri Sadhu Singh has been given shamlat land which falls outside Lal Lakir, by the Gram Panchayat Ghoman, Tehsil Batala, on the basis of his belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, about 15/18 years back, on which the deceased Shri Sadhu Singh raised construction of two rooms with the help of the defendants and started living together as joint family. The defendants had already been given the possession of the house by the deceased Shri Sadhu Singh during his life time, and therefore, it could not be said that the defendants illegally (possessed it) That the deceased Shri Sadhu Singh made a Will, bequea thing his house comprising two rooms in favour of the defendant Mohinder Singh on dated 25-2-1983 at his house at village Ghoman, Tehsil Batala in the presence of some witnesses. The Testator deceased Shri Sadhu Singh having transferred his interest in house which devolved upon the defendant Mohinder Singh by intestate succession vide Will Deed made on 25-2-1983. The deceased Shri Sadhu Singh died on 5-8-1987 at village Ghoman-Tehsil Batala and after the death of Testator deceased Shri Sadhu Singh, on 5-8-1987 the defendant Mohinder Singh has succeeded to and inherited the house in the suit The defendant has set up his claim of being the real owner of the house on the basis of the Will, annexed with the written statement, made by the Testator deceased Shri Sadhu Singh. The Testator deceased Shri Sadhu Singh had done so right in the beginning to bequeath his house in favour of defendant Shri Mohinder Singh. The Testator deceased Shri Sadhu Singh used to reside with the defendant Mahinder Singh and his family took care of the Testator deceased Shri Sadhu Singh and the said plaintiff resided at far off places, never met him during his life time Neither plaintiff attended the funeral ceremony of the deceased Sadhu Singh. Plaintiff never inclined nor were she in a position to take care of the Testator deceased Sadhu Singh. The Testator resided with defendant Mohinder Singh even much prior to 25-2-1983 when the Will was executed. The remaining two rooms have been constructed by the defendants themselves after the death of said Sadhu Singh. "

3 In the application for amendment sought to be made in this para, it was stated that toe words "by intestate succession" have been written inadvertently and by mere type mistake. It is further mentioned that after the words "mohinder Singh" and before the words "vide Will" the words "by intestate succession" may be allowed to be deleted and in its place words "transferred all rights of house in question to defendants" be inserted. The other amendment was sought in para 5 of the written statement, which reads as under :-

" that para No.5 is wrong and denied. The plaintiff has got no cause of action. The defendants are in continuous, consistent and integral possession even during the life time of the Testator deceased Sadhu Singh, about 15/18 years back. The executed Will deed dated 25-2-1983, has come into operation on 5-8-1983. The Testator Shri Sadhu Singh (deceased) having his interest transferred in the house, which devolved upon defendant Shri Mohinder Singh by intestate succession Will Deed made on 25-2-1983. The question does not arise that defendants are in illegal possession and the jurisdiction of the court is barred. This Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try and adjudicate upon the matter. " In this para also the words "by intestate succession" were inadvertently written and similarly words "transferred all rights of house in question to the defendants" are to be




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