Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - C. M. No. 30519-C-II of 2012 :

Allowed as prayed for.

Main Case :

1. In this revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by defendant no.2 Punjab National Bank, challenge is to order dated 18.09.2012 (Annexure P-1), passed by the trial court, thereby allowing application (Annexure P-2) moved by the respondents/plaintiffs for amendment of plaint and replication, subject to payment of Rs.500/- as costs.

2. Plaintiffs have filed suit against petitioner Bank for recovery of Rs.3,00,000/-, on the basis of cheque amount of Rs.3,00,000/- having not been paid to the plaintiffs by the defendant Bank.

3. In the original plaint, number of the cheque in question was mentioned as 450202 and serial numbers of the 100 cheques contained in the cheque-book were mentioned as 450201 to 450300. In amendment application (Annexure P-2), it has been alleged that correct number of the disputed cheque is 45202 and correct serial numbers of the 100 cheques are 45201 to 45300. It was alleged that there has been typographical error in mentioning the numbers in the original plaint and replication, which are sought to be corrected by amendment.

4. The application was opposed by defendants, having been moved at late stage i.e. at stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments.

5. Learned trial court, vide impugned order (Annexure P-1), has allowed the amendment application, subject to payment of Rs.500/- as costs. Feeling aggrieved, defendant Bank has filed this revision petition to challenge the said order.

6. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

7. Counsel for the petitioner, relying on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J. Samuel and others vs. Gattu Mahesh and others, [2012(1) Law Herald (SC) 700] : reported as 2012 (1) R. C. R. (Civil) 903, contended that even clerical or typographical error cannot be allowed to be corrected by amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial, in view of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The contention is completely misconceived and devoid of substance. Reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J. Samuel (supra) is completely misplaced as the same has no applicability to the facts of the instant case. In that case, suit was filed for specific performance of the agreement to sell. However, necessary ingredients of Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, for seeking specific performance of the agreement, were not pleaded in the plaint. Objection to this effect was also taken in the written statement, but in spite thereof, amendment of plaint was not claimed at that stage. On the other hand, application for amendment of plaint was moved after final arguments had been heard in the suit. In these circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that proposed amendment of plaint could not be allowed. The said case is distinguishable on various grounds. In that case, the amendment sought did not relate to clerical or typographical error, but related to substantive pleading, whereas in the instant case, it is apparent that the amendment sought is only regarding clerical or typographical error in mentioning the correct numbers of the cheques as additional digit ‘0’ was wrongly mentioned in the numbers in the original plaint. Secondly, in the reported case, the amendment application was moved even after final arguments had been heard in the suit, whereas in the instant case, the amendment application has been moved before commencement of arguments, although at the stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments. Thirdly, in the reported case, the defect regarding pleading to be taken by way of amendment, had been specifically pointed out in the written statement, but it has not been done so in the instant case, although the bank did plead that the cheque numbers mentioned by the plaintiffs in the plaint do not pertain to the defendant bank. However, the defendant bank knew the correct numbers of th