Shashi Kant Gupta, J.;-

1. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.9.2002 passed by Respondent No. 2, Additional District Judge/Special Judge (NDPS Act), Firozabad, in Civil Revision No. 6 of 2002 setting aside the order dated 16.2.2002 whereby the amendment sought by the petitioner in its written statement was allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows;

3. A suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed by the Respondent No. 1 against the petitioners. It was stated in paragraph 1 of the plaint that the plaintiff is a registered society under UP Gaushala Adhiniyam, 1964 and the certificate to the effect has been issued by the Gaushala Registrar and Animal Husbandry Department. Thereafter, written statement was filed. During the pendency of the suit, an amendment applicant under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by the petitioner for amendment in paragraph 1 of the written statement. The trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, by order dated 16.2.2002 allowed the said amendment application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 16.2.2002, the Respondent No. 2 filed a revision which was registered as Civil Revision No. 6 of 2002. The Revisional Court by order dated 21.9.2002 allowed the revision. Hence the present writ petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. In Rakesh Kumar Agarwal and others Vs. K.K. Modi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 385; it was laid down that the rule of amendment is essentially a rule of justice, equity and good conscious; and the power of amendment should be exercised in the larger interest of doing full and complete justice to the parties before the Court.

6. In this connection, it is also apt to extract Rule 17 of Order VI CPC, which is as under:

"17. Amendment of pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:

Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial."

7. The first limb of the Rule 17 of Order VI CPC viz. "the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend their pleadings in such manner" is discretionary in view of the word "may" used therein; The second limb of the Rule 17 of Order VI CPC i.e. "all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties" is imperative in view of the word "shall" used. However, the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI CPC expressly bars such amendments after the commencement of the trial of suit. But still, the bar imposed under the proviso to the Rule 17 of Order VI CPC is not absolute, because, even after the commencement of the trial, the Court may allow either of the parties to amend or alter their pleadings, if the court comes to the conclusion that despite due diligence, the parties could not raise the matter before the commencement of the trial. It is in this sense, the power to amend the pleadings, is wide, and such power of the court should not be mere hypertechnical. It should be exercised liberally. With this background, now let us consider the submissions made by either side.

8. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that due to typographical error the word "Nahi" could not be incorporated, as such, "Yah Ki Vaad Patra Ki Dhara 1 Swikar Hai" was wrongly mentioned in paragraph 1 of the written statement instead of "Yah Ki Vaad Patra Ki Dhara 1 Nahi Swikar Hai". Learned counsel for the petitioner further drew attention of this Court towards paragraph 20 of the written statement wherein it was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document