The court held that amendments to pleadings should be allowed if they are necessary for the proper adjudication of the real dispute between parties. Courts should not examine the merits of the proposed amendment at the stage of deciding the application, focusing instead on rectifying clerical errors to ensure justice.

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J.

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 18.04.2023 (Annexure P-4) vide which application dated 25.03.2021 for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, a perusal of the plaint would show that it was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.3,70,000/- on 01.01.2015 and another amount of Rs.3,70,000/- on 03.01.2015 and had agreed to return the said amount along with interest at the rate of Rs.2/- per hundred per month and had also executed and signed a pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the suit was filed on 13.12.2017 and thus, on the date of filing of the suit, after adding interest at the agreed rate, total amount which was to be claimed was Rs.12,58,000/-, out of which, an amount of Rs.7,40,000/- was the principal amount and the rest was on account of interest. It is submitted that thus, the suit for recovery of Rs.12,58,000/- along with cost, pendente-lite and future interest was to be filed however, in the head note of the plaint, an error was made and the suit for recovery of only Rs.7,40,000/- along with cost, pendente-lite and future interest was filed. It is further submitted that in para 4 of the plaint, total amount due on the date of filing of suit was to be mentioned as Rs.12,58,000/- but inadvertently, the same was mentioned as Rs.45,050/- which was in fact, the Court fee which has been affixed by the plaintiff. It is submitted that when the application was filed for amendment, the suit was at the initial stage and at any rate, the application was only to rectify the said mistake and that the same was necessary for the proper and final adjudication of the case, however, the trial Court, vide impugned order has dismissed the said application for amendment.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:-

3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that a perusal of the prayer clause of the plaint would show that it has been claimed by the plaintiff that an amount of Rs.7,40,000/- be paid along with interest from 01.01.2015 and further prayer had been made for payment of cost, pendente-lite and future interest from the date of filing of the suit till its realisation at the rate of Rs.2/- per hundred per month. It is submitted that thus, the prayer has already been made with respect to the relief claimed by amendment and unnecessarily to delay the proceedings, the plaintiff has filed the present application for amendment. It is submitted that in case the said amendment is to be allowed then the same should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and defendant be permitted to file amended written statement to oppose the pleas raised in the amended plaint. It is further submitted that since during the pendency of the present revision petition, there was no stay of proceedings, thus, the plaintiff’s evidence has been closed on 23.07.2025, therefore, the plaintiff be not permitted to lead further evidence. It is further submitted that cost be also imposed upon the petitioner for the inconvenience caused to the respondent-defendant.

ARGUMENT IN REBUTTAL:-

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has submitted that the petitioner would not lead any further evidence and has also stated that he would pay reasonable cost to the respondent.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:-

5. This C