An amendment to correct a typographical error in the date of a transaction may be allowed after the trial has commenced if the correction is supported by prior consistent statements and does not unfairly improve the party's case.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

[1] The present revision petition is directed against Order dated 06.11.2017 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint has been declined.

[2] The petitioner filed a suit seeking recovery of ₹ 28,84,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the year 2008 till final realization. The suit is based upon a cheque dated 01.06.2008 issued by Silak Ram, which got dishonoured. The parties to the lis are related to each other. As per the averments made in the plaint, plaintiff pleaded that the amount of ₹28,84,000/- was borrowed by defendant No.2 to 4 from the plaintiff in the year 2008. After framing of issues and examination of 04 witnesses of the plaintiff, the present application was filed seeking amendment of the plaint to the effect that the amount was borrowed by defendant Nos.2 to 4 in the year 2004 and not in 2008.

[3] The application was contested by the defendants, claiming that the suit is based upon falsehood. The plaintiff at his convenience is changing his stand repeatedly. Not only the trial has commenced, but even the plaintiff has deposed claiming that the money was borrowed by defendants in the year 2008. At this stage, allowing the plaintiff to alter his stand would lead to de novo trial.

[4] The Trial Court dismissed the application holding that the trial has already commenced. Though the plaintiff claims that the averments made in the plaint with respect to borrowing of money in the year 2008 to be a typographical error, which needs to be corrected, but even in the legal notice (Exhibit P-1) issued at the behest of the plaintiff, it was claimed that the amount was borrowed in the year 2008. Trial Court accordingly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff.

[5] I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through record(s) of the case.

[6] It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the dishonoured cheque dated 01.06.2008, plaintiff filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against father of defendant Nos.2 to 4, namely Silak Ram. Statement of the plaintiff was recorded on 10.05.2012 in the complaint case. In the said complaint, complainant testified that he sold land to one Jai Narain on 08.07.2004 and, on the same day, lent an amount of ₹8,24,000/- to defendant-Silak Ram. Thus, the stand of the plaintiff even prior to filing of the present suit before the Courts was that the amount was lent in the year 2004. The aforesaid aspect has been ignored by the Trial Court.

[7] In view thereof, this Court finds that the Trial Court ought not have dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to correct a typographical error regarding date of borrowing of money by defendants. Keeping in view that the year of lending money has been altered from 2008 to 2004, it cannot be held that the plaintiff has tried to improve upon his version as the same is to his own detriment.

[8] In view thereof, the present revision petition is allowed.

[9] All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off.