THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2944 & 2959 of 2024

COMMON ORDER:

Sri Ali Farooq, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants and Sri G. Giridhar, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff.

2. With the consent finally heard.

3. In C.R.P.No.2959 of 2024, the challenge is mounted to the order dated 13.03.2024 in I.A.No.216 of 2024 in O.S.No.876 of 2017, whereby application filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.)

was allowed after commencement of the trial.

4. In C.R.P.No.2944 of 2024, the order dated 19.06.2024 is subject matter of challenge whereby application of present petitioners/defendants filed under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. was dismissed for challenging the order dated

13.03.2024 in I.A.No.216 of 2024 in O.S.No.876 of 2017.

5. The admitted facts between the parties are that in O.S.No.876 of 2017, after commencement of trial, respondent No.1/plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. The docket proceedings show that the matter was listed on 23.02.2024, 05.03.2024 and 12.03.2024. Since no counter was filed, the trial Court decided the said application on 13.03.2024.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that the petitioners’ grievance are two-fold. Firstly, the petitioners/defendants were not given opportunity to file counter and secondly, the impugned order allowing the amendment application is passed mechanically, without considering the nature of cross- examination which had taken place pursuant to which respondent No.1/plaintiff tried to improve his case by filing amendment application.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff supported the impugned order and submits that sufficient opportunities were granted to the present petitioners/defendants to file counter to the amendment application. The petitioners/defendants failed to avail the said opportunity and therefore, it cannot be said that proceedings suffer from any procedural impropriety. On merits, it is submitted that the different paragraphs of plaint averments show that there were typographical error in relation to description of schedule-A property. In order to streamline the same and iron out the crease and with a view to correct the typographical error, amendment application was filed. The trial Court has not committed any error of law in allowing the amendment application. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the following judgments:

1. North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (D) by L.Rs.1

2. M/s. Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. M/s. Narayanaswamy and Sons2

3. Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited3 , 4. Raj Kumar v. Dipender Kaur Sethi, [AIR 2005 Supreme Court 1592] and 5. S.M.M. Abdi v. Janaki Ballavi Patnaik5

8. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.

9. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties fairly informed this Court that after amendment application was allowed, the present petitioners/defendants have already filed their amended counter.

10. So far question of procedural impropriety is concerned, the docket order dated 23.02.2024, 05.03.2024 and 12.03.2024 clearly show that the petitioners/defendants were given opportunity to file counter to the amendment application. Sufficient time was given to the petitioners/defendants to file counter. Thus, this Court is unable to persuade with the line of argument that learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants were not given sufficient opportunity to file counter. Merely, because application under Order IX Rule 7 of

1 AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2139

2 AIR 2009 Sc (Supp) 2897

3 AIR 2022 Supreme Court 4256

5 AIR 1989 Orissa 265

C.P.C. was filed on the same day i.e. on 13.03.2024, that will not wipe out the impact of opportunities granted to the petitioners/defendants from 23.03.2024 to 13.03.2024. This appears to be only an afte