The court held that an amendment to a plaint should be allowed if it is necessary for the final adjudication of the real dispute between the parties, provided it does not change the nature of the suit or cause prejudice to the defendant, even if it involves correcting a typographical error.

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J.

1. Present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 21.08.2023 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amloh, vide which the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance. It is further submitted that an agreement to sell, which was entered into, was dated 04.11.2014 and the last date for execution of the same was 05.11.2015, but inadvertently, due to a typographical mistake, the said date was mentioned as 15.11.2015 in paragraphs No.3, 5 and 6 and 13 of the plaint. It is further submitted that the suit was filed within limitation from 05.11.2015 as well as from 15.11.2015 and thus, the correction of the said date would not prejudice the defendant. It is argued that the defendant had denied the agreement dated 04.11.2014 and thus, the date for execution of the sale deed was inconsequential as far as the defence of the defendant is considered. It is submitted that when the plaintiff learnt about the said typographical mistake, the petitioner/plaintiff moved an application for amendment in which it was specifically stated that the same was a typographical mistake but the trial Court has dismissed the said application. It is argued that the said mistake, which is a typographical mistake, should have been allowed to be rectified and the same is necessary for the proper and final adjudication of the case.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the application has been moved at the fag end of the trial when the matter was fixed for arguments. It is further submitted that the said mistake should have been sought to be rectified earlier. It is stated that at any rate, even in case the said mistake is allowed to be rectified at this stage, then, heavy cost should be imposed upon the petitioner/plaintiff.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the objections raised, the petitioner is ready to pay a reasonable cost.

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper-book and is of the opinion that the amendment sought to be made is only on account of a typographical mistake and the said amendment should have been allowed as the same is necessary for the proper and final adjudication of the case and the impugned order dated 21.08.2023, thus, deserves to be set aside.

6. A perusal of the plaint would show that the case of the plaintiff is based upon the agreement dated 04.11.2014, which agreement, has been denied by the defendant in the written statement. It is the case of the plaintiff that the last date for execution of the sale deed was 05.11.2015 and inadvertently on account of typographical mistake, the said date was mentioned as 15.11.2015 and it is the said typographical mistake, which is sought to be rectified. The changing of the date from 15.11.2015 to 05.11.2015 would not, in any way, prejudice the defendant, inasmuch as, the suit which was instituted by the plaintiff on 10.07.2017, is within a period of three years irrespective of the fact that as to whether the date for execution of the sale deed is taken to be as 15.11.2015 or 05.11.2015. Neither the nature of the suit is being changed nor any benefit is sought to be claimed on the basis of the change of the said date and it is only for the purpose of proper and final adjudi