The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of due diligence before allowing an amendment after the commencement of trial, as per the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of CPC.

With the consent of learned counsel of both side the matter is taken up for hearing and disposal at this stage itself.

2. Heard learned counsel Mr. D.K.Biswas for the petitioner and learned counsel Ms. S. Deb Gupta for the respondent.

3. The respondent as plaintiff instituted Money Suit No.09/2013 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Agartala against the petitioner herein, as defendant, seeking a decree for realization of Rs.32,993/-. While the suit was at the stage of hearing final argument, the plaintiff-respondent filed a petition under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Section 153 and 151 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint on the ground that there were some typographical mistake due to overlook and prayed for allowing the following amendment:-

“SCHEDULE OF AMENDMENT

The name of the business in the cause title in page 1 in 3rd line will be Prabhati Concern instead of Prabhati Medical Agency.

The name of the business of the plaintiff in page 2 paragraph 1 in 3rd line will be M/S Prabhati Concern instead of Prabhati Medical Agency and the name of the business/shop of the defendant in para 1 of page 2 in the 4th line will be Swasti Medical Hall instead of Maa Medical Hall.”

4. The defendant i.e. the petitioner herein submitted a written objection stating that typographical mistake and errors due to overlook cannot be amended after trial has commenced since there is nothing in the petition that in spite of due 3 diligence the party could not raise the issue before the trial commenced.

5. The petition seeking amendment was registered as Misc. Case No.14/2015 arising out of M.S.09/2013.

Learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division (Court No.2) by impugned order dated 07.09.2015 allowed the amendment and challenging that order the present revisional application is filed.

6. It is submitted by Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner that the trial Court itself has observed that there was laches on the part of the plaintiff in seeking the amendment in time but even after that finding the amendment has been allowed. He has also submitted that law has made it very clear that an amendment may be allowed after trial begins, only in the event the plaintiff could not detect the error or mistake in spite of exercise of due diligence. The proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI is an embargo which the Court should follow while allowing amendment after commencement of trial. It is the submission of Mr. Biswas that the plaintiff in his petition has simply stated that it was a typographical error and there is no averment in the petition that the error could not be detected in spite of due diligence before commencement of trial. According to Mr. Biswas the plaintiff is totally negligent in respect of the error which was apparent in the face of the record and when at the stage of argument it was found that the evidence was totally contrary to the pleadings the plaintiff has come with an amendment petition which is detrimental to the interest of the defendant-petitioner. He has also contended that there is no scope to show any sympathy to the plaintiff and the law has to be strictly followed while the plaintiff is found to be negligent and suffering from intentional inaction.

7. He has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of J. Samuel & Ors. V. Gattu Mahesh & Ors., reported in (2012) 2 SCC 300. It is the submission of Mr. Biswas that the fact of the present case is squarely covered by the fact of that case and the Apex Court has clearly held that amendment cannot be allowed simply on the ground that it was a typographical error unless it is shown that the error could not be detected in spite of due diligence before the commencement of trial.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel Ms. Deb Gupta has submitted that the plaintiff and defendant both are owners of proprietary firms and there is mistake of only mentioning the name of proprietary firm and by the proposed amendment the pleadings has not been sought to be amended. Only the n