The delay alone cannot be a ground to deny an amendment if it does not cause prejudice to the other party, and the amendment sought could have been known before the trial commenced.

Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral) - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 4.6.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar dismissing an application moved by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code Civil Procedure (for short the Code) for the amendment of the written statement.

2. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he is owner of an area measuring 6 kanals in the land situated in the area of village Reru, Tehsil and District Jalandhar on the basis of registered Will dated 3.9.1986 executed by S. Ujjagar Singh son of S. Bhola Singh in her favour. The petitioner also sought consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant-petitioner from obtaining the enhanced compensation in respect of acquisition of aforesaid land and also for the recovery of Rs. 7,33,200/-.

3. Written statement was filed by taking number of objections. In Para No. 2 of the written statement filed by the petitioner it was pleaded as under :

"2. That Para No. 2 of the plaint is totally incorrect, wrong and denied. It is absolutely unfounded and wrong that S. Ujjagar Singh executed any registered Will during his life time by which he bequeathed any part of his estate to the plaintiff. S. Ujjagar Singh died intestate leaving behind him the defendant and his brother Shri Santokh Singh and his widow Smt. Chint Kaur as his heirs and legal representatives. However, Smt. Chint Kaur also expired only 4 months after the death of S. Ujjagar Singh so the defendant and his brother Shri Santokh Singh became the only legal heirs and LRs and owners of the suit land and other property left by S. Ujjagar Singh. A valid mutation was also sanctioned by the revenue authorities of the estate of S. Ujjaggar Singh in the name of the defendant and his brother Shri Santokh Singh. Shri Santokh Singh has also unfortunately expired in the year 1989 and his estate has been inherited by his legal heirs and LRs. These facts are known to the plaintiff and she has intentionally omitted to mention them and they have been intentionally concealed with bad motive and intention.

The plaintiff has nothing to do with the suit land."

4. Issues were framed and the plaintiff led her evidence. The petitioner thereafter moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code claiming therein that while preparing for leading evidence a clerical and typographical error came to the notice of the defendant which is material one and is required to be rectified in the interest of justice. It was claimed by the petitioner that the word suit in Para No. 2 was superfluous and was on account of clerical and typographical error and thus, it was claimed that the amendment be allowed and the petitioner be allowed to correct Para No. 2 by deleting the word suit.

5. The application was contested.

6. Leaned trial court came to the conclusion that by way of amendment the petitioner is claiming that after the death of S. Ujjagar Singh he has become owner of the entire property left by S. Ujjagar Singh. Learned trial court came to the conclusion that the pleadings earlier framed also conveyed the same meaning.

7. Mr. N.C. Sahni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner by placing reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh & Ors. v. Manohar Singh & Anr., 2007(4) RAJ 435 contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained as mere delay could not be a ground for rejection of an application for amendment when no serious prejudice is shown to have been caused to the plaintiff. It is also the case of the petitioner that by way of amendment a party is permitted to explain the admission, if any, made in the written statement or in the evidence by filing an application for amendment of the written statement.

8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, is that it was permissible for the petitioner to get word suit deleted from Para No. 2 of the written statement as drafted. Le