Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 330 (MP)

Kunja v. Ghasiram

2014-03-24

SUJOY PAUL

body2014
ORDER 1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 22.7.2013, whereby an application filed by the plaintiffs, Annexure P/4, dated 24.4.2013 is allowed by the Court below. Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, assailed this order on the ground that at the stage the amendment application was filed, the matter was already fixed for plaintiffs' evidence. The trial has begun and, therefore, unless due diligence was shown, amendment could not have been allowed by the Court below. 2. It is contended that the plaintiffs have not shown any due diligence and without establishing due diligence, it was not open for the Court below to allow the amendment application. It is further submitted that by no stretch of imagination, the error in the plaint can be treated as a “typing error”. It is submitted that not only at one place, but at three places in the plaint, the plaintiffs have mentioned the name of father as “Funda”. In addition, in “Vakalatnama” and the registered address furnished by the plaintiffs before the Court below, the name of father is shown as “Funda”. He submits that if these documents are read conjointly, conclusion will be inevitable that the alleged mistake occurred is not a typographical one and, therefore, the Court below has erred in mechanically allowing the said amendment application. In support of this, he relied on the judgments of Supreme Court, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 409 ( Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another) and (2012) 2 SCC 300 (J. Samuel and others v. Gattu Mahesh and others). Lastly, it is contended that the amendment was allowed subject to payment of Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One Thousand Only) as costs. The Court below has further erred in permitting the amendment to be incorporated without even ensuring payment of this costs, which amounts to serious flaw in the decision making process. 3. Per contra, Shri Nirankari, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5/Plaintiffs, supported the order. He submits that the error in the plaint is a typographical error and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are hyper-technical in nature. He submits that no prejudice is caused to the other side, and therefore, the Court below has not erred in allowing the amendment by imposing costs. He submits that the error in the plaint is a typographical error and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are hyper-technical in nature. He submits that no prejudice is caused to the other side, and therefore, the Court below has not erred in allowing the amendment by imposing costs. He also relied on the same judgment of J. Samuel (supra) to submit that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the error does fall within the four corners of “typing error”. It is submitted that the facts and circumstances of J.Samuel (supra) were different and the said judgment has no application in the fact situation of the present case. He relied on AIR 2009 Allahabad 178 (Smt. Manoj Kumari & others v. Gokaran Nath Misra & another) to submit that such amendment and correction of typing error is permissible under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. No doubt, the plaintiff in the suit at more than one place has shown the name of father as “Funda”. The contention of Shri S.K. Shrivastava is that if the name of father is erroneously mentioned at more than one place in the plaint, it cannot be treated as typing mistake; more so when in “Vakalatnama” and registered address furnished before the Court below, the same mistake occurred, i.e., name of father is shown as “Funda”. 6. I do not see any merit in this contention. It is a matter of common knowledge in legal circle that “Vakalatnama” and registered address etc. are filled up by clerical staff/Munshis. Sometimes, these are filled up by junior/assisting Advocates. They gather this information about the name from the cause title of the plaint. Since in the cause title of the plaint, the name is erroneously mentioned as “Funda”, the mistake was repeated in Vakalatnama” and registered address furnished by the plaintiff. However, the core question is whether this mistake can be treated as a typing error and whether such amendment can be allowed after commencement of the trial. 7. Interestingly, both the parties cited the judgment of J.Samuel (supra). In J.Samuel, the application for amendment was filed when arguments were concluded and matter was posted for judgment. However, the core question is whether this mistake can be treated as a typing error and whether such amendment can be allowed after commencement of the trial. 7. Interestingly, both the parties cited the judgment of J.Samuel (supra). In J.Samuel, the application for amendment was filed when arguments were concluded and matter was posted for judgment. In the amendment application, which was subject matter of adjudication in J.Samuel, the party seeking amendment stated that certain specific pleadings as per certain sections of Specific Relief Act could not be typed/missed due to typographical error. Thus, it was a case of legal ground, which could not be incorporated in the main pleadings and was sought to be incorporated by way of amendment by terming it as “typographical error”. The apex Court in para 21 opined that the term “typographical error” is defined as a mistake made in the printed/typed material during a printing/typing process. 8. In the present case, the only error occurred is in typing the name of the father. In the opinion of this Court, this can very well be treated as a typing error. If such error occurs at one place, it may occur at other places also. Therefore, merely because there is a repetition in the name of father at more than one places in the plaint, it cannot be said that it is not because of typing error. The Court below opined that the said amendment will not change the nature of the case and it is necessary for lawful adjudication of this matter. If this application is rejected, it will multiply the litigation. In the interest of justice, the Court below allowed the said application by imposing Rs.1000/- as costs. So far the contention regarding non-payment of costs amount is concerned, in the fitness of thing, I deem it proper to direct the Court below to ensure that before next date of hearing the said amount is paid to the present petitioner. If the plaintiffs fail to pay the said amount on the date fixed by the Court below for this purpose, the amendment application shall be treated as disallowed. 9. In the opinion of this Court, the Court below has taken a plausible view. The scope of interference under Article 227 is limited. If the plaintiffs fail to pay the said amount on the date fixed by the Court below for this purpose, the amendment application shall be treated as disallowed. 9. In the opinion of this Court, the Court below has taken a plausible view. The scope of interference under Article 227 is limited. Interference can be made if order is shown to be passed by a Court having no jurisdiction, it suffers from manifest procedural impropriety or perversity. Interference is made to ensure that Courts below act within the bounds of their authority. Another view is possible, is not a ground for interference. Interference can be made sparingly for the said purpose and not for correcting error of facts and law in a routine manner. This view is taken in Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v. Rarjendra Shankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 . 10. In the present case, I find no ingredient on which interference can be made. Petition is disposed of with directions contained in para 8 above. No costs.