JUDGMENT :

Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.

1. Heard Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.

2. Office report dated 25.2.2020 indicates that an affidavit of service was filed by the revisionist which is dated 28th September 2012 pursuant to the dasti notices having been handed over to the counsel for revisionist fixing 15.10.2012. In view of the said fact, the notices on the respondents is deemed sufficient.

3. The present revision has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC') against the judgment and order dated 24.8.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 16, Kanpur Nagar on an application No. 324-Kha in Original Suit No. 24 of 2010 dismissing the said application filed by the plaintiff-revisionist under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment.

4. Case, in nutshell, is that the plaintiff-revisionist filed Original Suit No. 24 of 2010 against the defendants-respondents for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, shopkeepers, agents, dealers, stockiest or any other person acting on their behalf from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or soliciting business, advertising or displaying directly or indirectly, dealing in using the Trade Mark GHARI for salt or any other products under the plaintiff Trade Mark GHARI Lable. Further, a decree for rendition of accounts was also sought and for a direction to the defendants for delivery and destruction of all impugned wrappers, labels cylinders, dies, cartons, boxes, packing's and any other infringing copies or media used by the defendants in pursuit of their illegal activities under the Trade Mark GHARI.

5. The 18th page of the plaint got mutilated and it was replaced and by sheer mistake 5.4.2010 was typed as date of verification. Though, the plaint was ready on 30.3.2010 and affidavit of plaint was sworn on 30.3.2010. According to plaintiff-revisionist, as soon as the mistake was discovered, an application for rectification thereof was moved and on 8.2.2011, the application was allowed and amendment was duly incorporated in the plaint.

6. The defendants moved an application 333-C praying for recall of order dated 8.2.2011. The said application was allowed by the Court on 5.9.2011. The trial Court then by order impugned dated 24.8.2012 has rejected the amendment application, hence the present revision.

7. Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel submitted that the mistake which had occurred was not intentional, and the last page of the plaint got mutilated and was changed, the date of verification was wrongly transcribed as 5.4.2010. He contended that the mistake is merely clerical and no injustice would be done to the respondents in case, the application is allowed.

8. According to Sri Agrawal, the provisions of Order VI Rule 15 of CPC were complied with and it was only on the last page of the verification of pleading that 5.4.2010 was transcribed, for which the amendment application was immediately moved by the plaintiff which was initially allowed on 8.2.2011 and the amendment was carried out in the plaint. According to him, such an inadvertent clerical mistake could even be corrected by the Court exercising power under Section 151 CPC. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Apex Court in case of Regu Mahesh @ Regu Maheshwar Rao vs. Rajendra Pratap Bhanj Dev and Another, 2004 (1) SCC 46. Relevant paragraphs 9, 10, 12 and 13 are extracted here as under:

''9. As Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 prescribes that a person making a verification is required to specify by reference to the numbers of paragraphs of the pleadings what he believes on his own knowledge, and what he reveals upon information received and believed to be true. This admittedly has not been done in the present case.

10. In F.A. Sapa and Others vs. Singora and Others, (1991) 2 SCR 752, a three-Judge Bench of this Court specifically dealt with an issue concerning defects in the verificati