Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 235 (PNJ)

Harminder Singh v. Ashok Kumar

2020-01-21

ALKA SARIN

body2020
JUDGMENT Alka Sarin, J. - The present revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 08.03.2017 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide which the application dated 18.01.2017 filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for permission to amend the plaint has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts, relevant to the present lis, are that the plaintiff-petitioner herein filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreements to sell dated 25.04.2008 and 24.06.2008 directing the defendants to execute and get registered sale deed of land measuring 4648 square yards out of Khasra Nos.105//18, 19, 22/2, 23/2, 105//22/1, 24/1 vide jamabandi for the year 2000-01 situated in village Kassabad, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. It is apt to mention that earlier the suit was for perpetual injunction and, thereafter, on an application for amendment the suit was converted into a suit for specific performance. Yet again, during the course of the trial, when the case was fixed for the plaintiff's evidence, the plaintiff-petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of plaint wherein it was mentioned that due to a typing mistake the date of the first agreement was mentioned in the plaint as 25.04.2008 instead of 30.04.2008 and the area of the land sold was mentioned as 4048 square yards in para 1 of the plaint and the balance amount in para 5-A was mentioned as Rs.90,04,800/- in place of Rs.1,00,08,800/- and the last date for execution of the sale deed was mentioned as 20.04.2012 in para 7 and that the same mistake occurred in the affidavit submitted by the plaintiffpetitioner in his evidence. By way of the application, the plaintiff-petitioner wanted to substitute the date of the first agreement as 30.04.2008 instead of 25.04.2008 and further, the area of the plot as 4648 instead of 4048 square yards. Further, an amendment was also sought in the balance sale consideration amount which was mentioned as Rs.90,04,800/- to be read as Rs.1,00,08,800/-. It was claimed that the minor mistakes occurred in the plaint due to typographical errors and due to inadvertence. The trial Court, vide a detailed order, dismissed the said application. Hence, the present revision petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. It was claimed that the minor mistakes occurred in the plaint due to typographical errors and due to inadvertence. The trial Court, vide a detailed order, dismissed the said application. Hence, the present revision petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that no new pleas are being added and that these were only typographical mistakes which were required to be corrected by way of the amendment application. To substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following judgments:- i) Roshan Lal vs. Ram Piari & others, C.R. No.5708 of 2015 decided on 11.05.2016; ii) Gurcharan Singh vs. Sukhdev Kumar, (2016) 184 PunLR 424 ; iii) Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others vs. Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya, Qadian, a Registered Society, (2017) 188 PunLR 285 ; iv) Shish Ram vs. Municipal Corporation Gurgaon and others, (2016) 183 PunLR 686 ; and (v) Regd. Firm M/s Kathania Traders, Commission Agent vs. Krishan, C.R. No.5622 of 2015, decided on 22.05.2018. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the plaintiff-petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands and the amendments that are being sought now were not typing errors and that a perusal of the plaint would show that the dates were left blank and were later filled in by hand and, therefore, cannot be said to be typing errors. It is also contended by learned counsel for the respondents that in case a fresh suit was to be filed on the basis of the agreement dated 30.04.2008 the same would now be time-barred and, therefore, submitted that the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondents cited the following judgments to support his arguments:- i) J. Samuel and others vs. Gattu Mahesh and others, (2012) 1 RCR(Civil) 903 ; ii) Tarlok Singh vs. Vijay Kumar Sabharwal, (1996) 113 PunLR 649 ; and iii) Shiv Gopal Sah @ Shiv Gopal Sahu vs. Sita Ram Saraugi and others, (2007) 2 RCR(Civil) 679 . 6. There is no quarrel about the proposition of law that a typographical mistake apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by way of an amendment. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of J. Samuel and others (supra), has held as under:- "15. 6. There is no quarrel about the proposition of law that a typographical mistake apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by way of an amendment. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of J. Samuel and others (supra), has held as under:- "15. In the given facts, there is a clear lack of 'due diligence' and the mistake committed certainly does not come within the preview of a typographical error. The term typographical error is defined as a mistake made in the printed/typed material during a printing/typing process. The term includes errors due to mechanical failure or slips of the hand or finger, but usually excludes errors of ignorance. Therefore the act of neglecting to perform an action which one has an obligation to do cannot be called as a typographical error. As a consequence the plea of typographical error cannot be entertained in this regard since the situation is of lack of due diligence wherein such amendment is impliedly barred under the Code. 16. The claim of typographical error /mistake is baseless and cannot be accepted. In fact, had the person who prepared the plaint, signed and verified the plaint showed some attention, this omission could have been noticed and rectified there itself. In such circumstances, it cannot be construed that due diligence was adhered to and in any event, omission of mandatory requirement running into 3 to 4 sentences cannot be a typographical error as claimed by the plaintiffs. All these aspects have been rightly considered and concluded by the trial court and the High Court has committed an error in accepting the explanation that it was a typographical error to mention and it was an accidental slip. Though the counsel for the appellants have cited many decisions, on perusal, we are of the view that some of those cases have been decided prior to the insertion of Order 6 Rule 17 with proviso or on the peculiar facts of that case. This Court in various decisions upheld the power that in deserving cases, the Court can allow delayed amendment by compensating the other side by awarding costs. The entire object of the amendment to Order 6 Rule 17 as introduced in 2002 is to stall filing of application for amending a pleading subsequent to the commencement of trial, to avoid surprises and that the parties had sufficient knowledge of others case. The entire object of the amendment to Order 6 Rule 17 as introduced in 2002 is to stall filing of application for amending a pleading subsequent to the commencement of trial, to avoid surprises and that the parties had sufficient knowledge of others case. It also helps checking the delays in filing the applications. [vide Aniglase Yohannan v. Ramlatha and Others, (2005) 4 RCR(Civil) 563: (2005) 7 SCC 534 , Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey and Another v. Swami Keshav prakeshdasji N. and Others, Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand, (2008) 2 RCR(Civil) 801 : 2008(3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 83 : (2008) 5 SCC 117 , Rajkumar Guraward (dead) through LRS. v. S.K. Sarwagi and Company Private Limited and Another, (2008) 4 RCR(Civil) 824 : 2008(6) R.A.J. 248 : (2008) 14 SCC 364 , Vidyabai and Others v. Padmalatha and Another, (2009) 1 RCR(Civil) 763 : 2009(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 120 : (2009) 2 SCC 409 , Man Kaur (dead) By LRS v. Hartar Singh Sangha, (2011) 1 RCR(Civil) 189: 2010(6) R.A.J. 437 : (2010) 10 SCC 512 ." The ratio of the judgment in the J. Samuel's case (supra) applies on all fours to the facts of the present case. 8. A perusal of the amendment application in the present case reveals that the amendments now being sought cannot be termed as typographical errors, inasmuch as, not only is the date of the agreement sought to be changed but even the amount as well as the area are sought to be amended by way of the application for amendment. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show as to why the said typographical mistakes were not corrected at the time when the first amendment application was filed and allowed. The lackadaisical attitude of the plaintiff-petitioner is writ large and he cannot, at this stage, be allowed to carry out an amendment which would change the entire suit. 9. In view of the above, the present revision petition, which is devoid of any merit, is dismissed.