The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal approach in allowing amendments to the pleadings to serve the needs of justice and avoid multiplicity of litigation.

Darshan Singh, J.

The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 22.03.2016 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phul in Civil Suit No. 43 dated 31.03.2014 titled as Sukhdev Kumar v. Gurcharan Singh, whereby the application filed by respondent-plaintiff, for amendment of plaint, has been allowed.

2. The respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 30.11.2009 executed by the petitioner-defendant in his favour for the sale of land measuring 10 Kanal 9 Marla as described in headnote of the plaint situated in village Kesar Singh Wala, Sub Tehsil Bhagta Bhaika, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda. During the pendency of the said suit, respondent-plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint, pleading therein that due to typographical mistake the total sale price and the remaining amount required to be paid were wrongly mentioned.

3. The said application was contested by the present petitioner-defendant.

4. The learned trial court vide order dated 22.03.2016 allowed the application. Hence this revision petition.

5. I have heard Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner and have carefully gone through the paper book.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Trial Court has wrongly allowed the application moved by the respondent-plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. He contended that there was no explanation as to why the wrong sale price and remaining amount to be paid was mentioned. He contended that the trial has already commenced when this application was filed. This plea was already available to the respondent-plaintiff at the time of filing of the original plaint.

7. He further contended that as per proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'), the amendment in the pleadings can only be allowed before the commencement of the trial and not thereafter. He relied upon the case Vidyabai & ors. v. Padmalatha & anr., 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 763.

8. He further contended that the respondent-plaintiff has nowhere pleaded that in spite of due diligence he could not plead the correct sale price and the remaining amount to be paid in the original plaint. He can not dispute that this fact was very much in his knowledge, thus he contended that the learned trial court has wrongly allowed the application moved by the respondent for amendment of plaint. He relied upon the case J. Samuel & others v. Gattu Mahesh & others, 2012 (2) Civil Court Cases, 0252.

9. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions. The respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 30.11.2009. As per the application filed by the respondent for amendment of plaint, due to inadvertence in para No. 2, 6 and prayer clause, it was wrongly mentioned that the agreement was executed for a sum of Rs. 70,000/-, whereas, the sale price was Rs. 7,00,000/- per acre. It was also wrongly mentioned in the plaint that a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was still to be paid. Whereas the total sale price of the suit land was Rs. 9,14,375/- and an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid as earnest money and the remaining amount to be paid was Rs. 4,14,375/-. The application was moved by the respondent for making these corrections/amendments with respect to the sale price and the remaining amount to be paid. In reply to the application the petitioner has denied the execution of any agreement to sell and receipt of the earnest money of Rs. 5,00,000/-. It was also alleged that the proposed amendment will change the nature of the suit and will cause irreparable loss to the petitioner-defendant.

10. The amendment sought by the respondent-plaintiff was only with respect to the correction of the total sale price and the remaining amount to be paid. No other change in the original plaint was sought. The case of the respondent-plaintiff is based on agreement to sell dated 30