RITU TAGORE, J.

1. Mr. Maninder Arora, Advocate appears on behalf of respondent No.1 and files Power of attorney, which is taken on record, subject to just exceptions.

2. Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 01.12.2023 (Annexure P-12) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar vide which application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (Annexure P-9) filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff has been allowed.

1 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2024 23:57:23 :::

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the application for amendment of plaint moved by respondent No.1-plaintiff (Annexure P-9), submits that the application is without material particulars, such as which portion of the original plaint needs amendment, or what specific amendments are required to be added/ substituted/ deleted, and where the amended pleadings are to be added in the original plaint. The learned counsel submits that both the application and proposed amended plaint (Annexure P-10) are vague in nature, a practice which has been disapproved by the Courts. In support to his plea, referred to ‘ Gurdial Singh and others Vs. Raj Kumar Aneja and others’, (2002) 2 SCC 445 . It is stated that learned trial Court while allowing the application (Annexure P-9), failed to appreciate that application and proposed amended plaint were not in accordance with provisions of Order 6 Rule 17(2) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Further, despite specific objections raised by the petitioner/defendant in this regard, they were not addressed to by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel further submits that the learned trial Court also failed to note that no prayer for recovery was made by the plaintiff nor was the Court fee calculated or affixed on the relief claimed. Despite this, learned Court allowed the respondent No.1-plaintiff the relief of recovery by amendment of the plaint. It is stated that the proposed amended plaint (Annexure P-10) was beyond the prayer allowed. On the above premise, a prayer is made to set aside the impugned order.

4. On the other hand, learned counsels for respondent No.1-

plaintiff was unable to deny that the application for amendment of plaint (Annexure P-9) does not specify the necessary additions or amendments needed, nor does it indicate where these amendments are to be incorporated in the original plaint. The learned counsel also could not deny that the 2 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2024 23:57:24 :::

proposed plaint (Annexure P-10) annexed, is also deficient in the material particulars to be incorporated in the plaint as required under Order 6 Rule 17(2) CPC. Learned counsel, however, submits that respondent No.1-

petitioner may be permitted to move an appropriate application, encompassing all the pleas, including the cause of action as set out in the application (Annexure P-9). It is urged that due to the loose drafting of the plaint by the counsel, the party should not be penalized.

5. Contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits in case permission is given to the respondent-plaintiff to move an appropriate application, in that case, he should be given the liberty to take all the pleas to oppose the application.

6. I have gone through the impugned order (Annexure P-12). It is a matter of record that respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit (Annexure P-1) for declaration and permanent and mandatory injunction against the present petitioner and others and during the pendency of the aforesaid suit, respondent No.1-plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint (Annexure P-9), which reads as under:-

“APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF, FOR AMENDMENT OF THE PLAINT

1. That the applicant has preferred the above noted civil suit seeking declaration and permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants, pending adjudication b