ORDER

Caveat No. 729/2023

Caveat stands discharged.

(Oral)

CR No. 16/2023

1. Through the medium of the instant Revision Petition, the petitioner has questioned the order dated 20.04.2023 (for short the, “impugned order”) passed by the Court of learned Sub-Judge, Ramnagar (hereinafter referred to as the, “trial Court”) in case titled as, “Mehmood Ahmed vs. Manga Ram”.

2. Before adverting to the grounds urged in the petition for testing the validity and legality of the impugned order, a brief background of the case needs to be delineated.

3. The petitioner herein as plaintiff filed a suit for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction against the defendant/respondent herein on 28.05.2022 on the premise that the defendant is interfering into the possession and occupation of his land measuring 02 Kanals covering under Khasra No. 1188/701 situated at Village Dehari, Tehsil Ramnagar, District Udhampur. In the application for interim relief accompanying the suit, the trial Court passed an interim order of status-quo on 28.05.2022. The plaintiff/petitioner herein during the pendency of the suit and before filing of the written statement by the defendant/respondent herein to the suit, filed an application, seeking amendment of the plaint insofar as the Survey number of the land in question is concerned by providing Survey No. 1188/700 instead of Survey No. 1188/701 on the ground that the said Survey number came to be provided to the plaintiff/petitioner herein in a fresh Girdawari issued by the Revenue Authorities, reflecting the correct Khasra number of the land in question as 1188/700. The application after being entertained by the trial Court on 24.06.2022, directed defendant non-applicant filing of objections to the application on 25.07.2022. On 01.02.2023, the trial Court heard in part the arguments in the application for amendment of the plaint and fixed the case for filing of case laws by the counsel for the parties on 23.02.2023, on which date, no proceedings came to be conducted by the trial Court on account of non-availability of the Presiding Officer, whereafter the trial Court passed the impugned order on 20.04.2023 after adjourning the case on the previous date of hearing, i.e., 07.04.2023.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the “CPC”) deals with the amendment of the pleadings and declares that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such a manner and on such terms as may be just, and that all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties, however, with a caveat appended in the form of a proviso to Order VI Rule 17 added in terms of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, enacting that no application for amendment should be allowed after trial is commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.

5. The object behind the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 has been laid down by the Apex Court in number of judgments including the one titled as, “Ganesh Trading Company vs. Moji Ram, reported in 1978 (2) SCC 91”, providing therein that the object of the rule is that the Courts should try the merits of the case that comes before it and should consequently allow all amendments, that may be necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties, provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side, as ultimately the Courts exist for doing justice between the parties and not for punishing them and that the Courts are empowered to grant amendment of the pleadings in the larger interest of doing full and complete justice to the parties and that the provision of amendment of the pleadings is intended for promoting the ends of justice and not for defeating them. It has also been laid by the Apex Court in a catena of judgments including the one titled as, “B.K. Narayana Pillai vs. Pararneswaran Pillai and Anr. reported in 2000 (1) SCC 712” that though the amendments cannot be claimed as a matter of right under all circumstances, yet it is equally true that the Courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hypertechnical approach, but instead liberal approach should be the general rule, particularly, in cases, where other side can be compensated with costs, as the technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the Courts in the administration of justice between the parties and that amendments should be allowed in order to avoid uncalled for multiplicity of litigation.

6. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles of law laid down by the Apex Court and reverting back to the case in hand, indisputably the plaintiff/petitioner herein immediately after filing the suit on 28.05.2022, filed an application, seeking amendment of the plaint for providing correct Survey number of the land in dispute being Survey No. 1188/700 instead of 1188/701 after having obtained the correct Girdawari from the Revenue Authorities. The said application, admittedly, came to be filed by the plaintiff/petitioner herein prior to the commencement of the trial of the case, which in law would have commenced upon framing of issues by the trial Court. The amendment sought in the plaint by the plaintiff/petitioner herein cannot said to have been changing the nature of the suit or else, incorporating a new/fresh cause of action, but only clarificatory in nature for correcting the mistake and error having got incorporated in the plaint qua the Survey number of the land.

7. The issue about correction of clerical mistake, description and identification of subject matter of a suit without changing the nature of the suit or introducing a new case or cause of action stands settled by this Court in case titled as, “Rasool and ors. vs. Haji Usman and others on 23.01.2001” and same squarely covers the instant case herein.

8. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances obtaining in the matter, the trial Court, seemingly, has misdirected itself having not considered the same in its true and correct perspective, inasmuch as, overlooking the principles and propositions of law laid down by the Apex Court supra as the amendment sought by the plaintiff petitioner herein admittedly, in no way, can said to have been changing the nature of the suit or else introducing a new case or cause of action and the defendant/respondent herein could have been compensated by way of costs by the trial Court in view of the nature of amendment and the stage at which the amendment was sought by the plaintiff/petitioner herein.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, facts and circumstances, the impugned order is not legally sustainable, as such, same shall stand set aside. The application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner herein for amendment of the plaint shall stand allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1500/-, to be payable by the plaintiff/petitioner herein to the defendant/respondent herein within two weeks’ time. The trial Court to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.

10. Revision petition is, accordingly, disposed of alongwith connected application.

Order accordingly.

********