An application for amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC cannot be allowed after the commencement of trial unless the party establishes that the matter could not have been raised earlier despite due diligence, and such amendments cannot be used to withdraw prior admissions or delay proceedings.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendants No.1 and 3 laying challenge to the order dated 27.02.2020 (Annexure P7) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur, whereby application filed by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of written statement, has been dismissed.

2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned trial Court was in error in dismissing the application of the petitioners as it failed to appreciate that vide the said amendment, no new or inconsistent case was being sought to be incorporated by the petitioners. It is submitted that after the conclusion of the plaintiff evidence, when the evidence of the defendants had to start and affidavit to that effect was being prepared, counsel for the petitioners had seen the Agreements to Sell dated 24.08.2006, 05.11.2007 and Sale Deed dated 04.06.2008. It is submitted that after perusing the said documents, learned counsel for the petitioners had realised that there is a typographical error in Para 2 of the written statement as in the said Para, it had been mentioned that the respondent No.1 has executed Agreement to Sell dated 24.08.2006 in respect of land measuring 18 acre 5 kanal; whereas as per Agreement to Sell dated 24.08.2006, the said Agreement was executed by respondent No.1 in favour of petitioner No.1 with regard to property measuring 18 acre 5 kanal for a sum of Rs.6,25,000/- per acre and out of the said amount, Rs.2,00,000/- was received as earnest money.

3. It is submitted that thereafter, the respondent after receiving sale consideration from petitioner no. 1 has executed power of attorney dated 08.06.2007 in favour of petitioner no.1; who further entered into agreement to sell dated 05.11.2007 in favour of defendant no. 2 i.e. Gurdeep Singh son of Harnam Singh. However, in para no. 2 of the written statement, due to the typographical error, it was mentioned that the agreement to sell dated 05.11.2007 with regard to land measuring 18 acre 5 Kanal was executed in favour of defendant no. 2 i.e. Gurdeep Singh son of Harnam Singh and petitioner no. 2 i.e. defendant no. 3. Thus, due to the typographical mistake, the name of defendant no. 3 i.e. petitioner no. 2 was entered. To substantiate the said fact, the petitioners would be relying upon the agreement to sell dated 05.11.2007, the perusal of which clearly shows that the said agreement to sell was executed in favour of defendant no. 2 i.e. Gurdeep Singh son of Harnam Singh and not in favour of the petitioner no. 2 i.e. defendant no. 3 in the suit. Thus, it is only due to the typographical mistake that the name of the petitioner no. 2 was mentioned in para no. 2 of the written statement.

4. It is further submitted that thereafter, defendant no. 2 i.e. Gurdeep Singh son of Harnam Singh has executed sale deed 04.06.2008 in favour of petitioner no. 2, however, in para no. 2 of the written statement, it was mentioned that the sale deed dated 04.06.2008 was executed in favour of petitioner no.2 and Tejinder Singh son of Gurdeep Singh i.e. defendant no. 4. Thus, due to the typographical mistake, the name of defendant no. 4 i.e. Tejinder Singh was mentioned, whereas the said sale deed was executed only in favour of defendant no. 3 (i.e. petitioner no. 2).

5. It is submitted that therefore, from the above submissions, it is crystal clear that only due to typographical mistake in the written statement, the said errors have occurred which were sought to be corrected vide the amendment. It is reiterated that from the above fact