[2026:RJ-JP:16837]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4355/2023 Vishnu Dutt Sharma Son Of Anand Ram Ji, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Behind P W D Office, Lanka Gate, Bundi (Raj.)

----Plaintiff/Applicant/Petitioner Versus Indra Singh Yadav Son Of Takht Singh Yadav, Resident Of Radha Bhawan, Shyam Gali, House Number 195/30, Hathi Bhata Ajmer (Raj.)

----Defendant/Non-Applicant/Non-Petitioner For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudarshan Kumar Laddha Mr. Naman Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Agarwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Judgment / Order

21/04/2026

1. The matter comes upon an application No. 01/2026, seeking early listing.

2. For the reason mentioned in the said application, the same is allowed. With the consent of both the parties, the writ petition is finally heard today.

3. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 03.02.2023, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 02, Bundi, in Civil Case No. 26/2019, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, due to an in- advertent typographical error, the name of the plaintiff’s father in the plaint was recorded as “Anand Ram” instead of “Anant Ram”.

Accordingly, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed seeking correction of the said name.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the error is purely typographical in nature. The proposed amendment neither changes the nature of the suit nor causes any prejudice to the defendant, as no admission is sought to be withdrawn. Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs Sanjeev Builders Private Limited &Anr.; 2022 (16)

SCC 1.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the application was filed after completion of the plaintiff’s cross- examination. He further submits that during cross-examination, the plaintiff was confronted with the fact that in several instances he had mentioned his father’s name as “Anand Ram” instead of “Anant Ram”. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the application.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. This Court finds that in the case of Sanjeev Builders (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that amendments should ordinarily be permitted where they do not alter the nature of the suit, are not barred by limitation, and do not cause prejudice to the opposite party. The relevant paragraph reads as under:

“71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:

71.1. Order II Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite condi- tions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred Under Order II Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived.

71.2. All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word "shall", in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

71.3. The prayer for amendment is to be allowed.

71.3.1. If the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties.

71.3.2. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers aright on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).

71.4. A prayer for amendment is generally required