SUHDIR JAIN Vs. R.P. MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC the Plaintiff seeks to amend the plaint, delete Para- 1(b) of the plaint and to make necessary corrections in respect of the typographical error which has occurred in various paragraphs by writing Rs. 7.40 crores instead of Rs. 7.74 crores.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Plaintiff submits that when the plaint was drafted the Plaintiff was not present in India and thus he had instructed that the plaint should be signed, verified and instituted for and on behalf of the Plaintiff by one Mr. Ashu Jain, the authorized representative of the Plaintiff by virtue of the Registered Power of Attorney dated 21st January, 2011. However, by the time the plaint was filed the Plaintiff was in New Delhi and therefore, he signed the plaint instead of the constituted attorney. In view of this inadvertent error he seeks to delete Para-1(b) of the suit. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff further submits that in Para -12 of the plaint though the total amount due and payable to the Plaintiff by the Defendant is Rs. 7.74 crores which has been so mentioned while totaling the amount, however, it has been wrongly written as Rs. 7.40 crores in different paragraphs, that is, in the title of the suit, Paras-12, 13, 17 and the prayer clause . Since the errors are typographical and would not change the fundamental nature of the suit nor take away any admission, the application be allowed. Further the suit was instituted in January, 2012, the application seeking amendment was filed on 23rd February, 2012 and hence even for the amendment in the Court Fees Act, the court fee at the rate before the notification dated 1st August, 2012 would be applicable.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Plaintiff also contends that since no new facts have been pleaded and only typographical errors are sought to be corrected, the Plaintiff is entitled to carry out the amendments. Regarding Para-1(b) since the Plaintiff himself has instituted the suit, there is no question of withdrawal of an admission and thus the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the Defendant are not applicable. The Plaintiff was permitted to file the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act by this Court, which was duly filed on 17th February, 2012. The Defendant himself sought permission to file the written statement after the decision of the present application vide I.A. No. 9894/2012 and now he is taking a contrary stand. By the proposed amendment the Plaintiff has neither changed the basic structure of the suit nor withdrawn any admission, thus amendments be permitted to be carried out.