Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1346 (HP)

Ami Chand v. Sunita Sharma

2014-09-25

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2014
JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. 1. Complaint is that learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 6, Shimla, has erroneously allowed amendment in the plaint and thereby allowed the respondent/ plaintiff to correct the engine number and chassis number of the vehicle, subject matter of dispute in the suit. The order so passed on 2.6.2014 Annexure P-1 in an application under Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure has, therefore, been sought to be quashed and set aside. 2. The dispute in the suit is with regard to payment of sale consideration in respect of Indica Car, Model 2006 bearing registration No. HP-01A-0908. The same was allegedly sold by the respondent/plaintiff to petitioner/defendant in a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/-. Balance sale consideration, i.e. Rs. 1,28,000/- is stated to be not paid by the petitioner/ defendant, hence the suit for recovery thereof. 3. In para 1 of the plaint Annexure P-3 engine number and chassis number came to be mentioned as under: "Engine No. 4751D105ETZP63176, chassis number 600134ETZP68524." 4. In the written statement, the petitioner/defendant has disputed the Engine and Chassis number so given in the plaint being wrong. This has led in filing the application under Section 151 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure for seeking permission to carry out necessary corrections in the plaint. In reply thereto, the petitioner/defendant has opposed the same on the ground being not maintainable and belated also. 5. Learned trial Judge has, however, while taking into consideration the scope of Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure and arriving at a conclusion that both parties having undergone the trial knowing fully well the correct engine number and chassis number of the car has allowed the application and permitted the respondent/plaintiff to carry out necessary corrections in the plaint. Amended plaint has also been ordered to be placed on record. 6. Miss Shikha Chauhan, Advocate, learned Counsel, has canvassed that in an application under Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure the permission to amend the plaint should have not been granted. Otherwise also, the application, according to learned Counsel, being belated, should have not been allowed. Amended plaint has also been ordered to be placed on record. 6. Miss Shikha Chauhan, Advocate, learned Counsel, has canvassed that in an application under Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure the permission to amend the plaint should have not been granted. Otherwise also, the application, according to learned Counsel, being belated, should have not been allowed. In this regard it is pointed out that objection qua mentioning of wrong engine number and chassis number in the plaint was raised in the written statement and as such steps for amendment of the plaint should have been taken at the best opportunity available to the respondent and not at this belated stage when parties have already stepped into witness box and produced the evidence. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Prashant Pandey, Advocate, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, has urged that under Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court seized of the case may order correction in the pleadings if required to do so to decide the point in issue judiciously and effectively. 8. On analyzing the rival submissions and also the legal provisions an error of this nature can be ordered to be corrected in an application filed under Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure. True it is that the best available opportunity to the respondent/plaintiff to have filed the application was immediately after she having come to know about mentioning of wrong engine number and chassis number of the vehicle in question i.e. on filing the written statement by the petitioner/defendant. Anyhow, in replication to the written statement she filed, there is a reference that wrong engine number and chassis number came to be mentioned in the plaint by way of inadvertent mistake. This fact can be gathered from the perusal of the order under challenge. The fact, however, remains that the correction in the plaint is formal in nature because it is only engine number and chassis number of the vehicle has been ordered to be corrected. Such correction is not likely to change the nature of the suit and the relief sought. Therefore, the order under challenge calls for no interference. The fact, however, remains that the correction in the plaint is formal in nature because it is only engine number and chassis number of the vehicle has been ordered to be corrected. Such correction is not likely to change the nature of the suit and the relief sought. Therefore, the order under challenge calls for no interference. This Court, however, is oblivious to the anxiety of the petitioner/defendant, particularly on the question of delay and I feel that he should have been compensated in terms of money while allowing the permission to correct the pleadings at a belated stage and to have afforded an opportunity of filing written statement also to the amendment plaint. Therefore, the impugned order though is affirmed, however, subject to payment of Rs. 3,000/- as cost in the trial Court by the respondent/plaintiff to the petitioner/ defendant. The trial Court shall grant only one opportunity to the petitioner/defendant to file written statement, if any, to the amended plaint and thereafter to proceed further in the suit in accordance with law. 9. With these observations, this petition stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any. 10. An authenticated copy of this order be sent to the trial court for being taken on record.