Amendments to pleadings are permitted to properly identify parties and ensure effective adjudication, provided they do not alter the cause of action.

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. The present civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala, whereby the application dated 04.07.2025 filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 151 CPC was dismissed.

Brief Facts

2. The facts as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff/petitioner instituted a suit for recovery against M/s Sukhraj Agro, Shop No. 61, New Green Market, Batala, through its authorised signatory, Shri Rajinder Singh. In the plaint it was alleged that the defendant firm is a concern in which Rajinder Singh was managing and controlling the affairs. The written statement, however, specifically averred that the son of Rajinder Singh, namely Sukhraj Singh, is the sole proprietor of M/s Sukhraj Agro and that Rajinder Singh was not the proprietor of that firm though he admittedly runs M/s Rajinder Trading Company. Issues were framed TRIPTI SAINI and the matter proceeded to trial. An application for framing of an additional issue on the question of non-joinder of necessary parties was filed and dismissed.

3. Thereafter an application dated 24.02.2025 under Order I Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed. That application was recorded as having been withdrawn on 04.07.2025, the record bearing a statement by counsel for the plaintiff that the application suffered from a technical defect. The earlier order records the withdrawal but does not contain any express order either granting or refusing liberty to file a fresh application. On the same date i.e. on 04.07.2025 a fresh application was filed by the plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC seeking to amend the plaint by specifically adding the name of Sukhraj Singh as defendant No.2 and by stating that “defendant No.1 is a sole proprietorship concern and defendant No.2 is the sole proprietor of defendant No.1.” The learned trial court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the fresh application vide order dated 25.07.2025. The reasons recorded by the trial court are that an earlier similar application had been filed and withdrawn and no express liberty to file a fresh application was shown on record. The plaintiff had already led its evidence on the same array of parties and that allowing the amendment at the stage of defendant’s evidence would complicate the proceedings, cause multiplicity of applications, possibly necessitate further affidavits and leading of fresh evidence and would therefore prejudice the defendant. Further, the trial court observed that the plaintiff had not shown due diligence.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court contends that the impugned order is illegal and perverse. It is submitted that the omission to name TRIPTI SAINI the actual proprietor, namely Sukhraj Singh, in the plaint was a bona fide inadvertent/typographical error which does not alter the cause of action and that the proposed amendment is formal in nature. Reliance is placed upon the power of the Court under Order I Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 17 CPC to add necessary parties and to allow amendments at any stage so as to facilitate effective adjudication. It is also contended that refusal to allow the amendment would result in failure of justice because the decree, when passed, may not be executable against the correct person. It is further submitted that the plaintiff acted with due diligence in filing the earlier application and in promptly filing the corrected application and that the identity of the proprietor sought to be impleaded is adm