R P MITTAL Vs. SUDHIR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against an order dated 02.09.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in I.A No. 3789/2012 filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC by the respondent / plaintiff seeking to amend the plaint. The amendment sought was deletion of para 1(b) of the plaint and to make necessary corrections in respect of the alleged typographical error which occurred in various paragraphs of the plaint by writing the figure (and words) Rs 7.40 crores instead of Rs 7.74 crores. We may point out straightway that the amendment application was filed before the commencement of the trial. In fact, the plaint had been filed in January, 2012 and the amendment application was filed within a month on 23.02.2012. Therefore, it is clear that the amendments were sought by the plaintiff at the earliest stage. Paragraph 1(b) of the plaint as it was originally filed read as under:

(2.) THE amendment sought was the deletion of the above mentioned paragraph 1(b). The deletion was sought on the ground that when the plaintiff had instructed Mr Ashu Jain to sign, verify and institute the plaint, he was abroad but had returned before the plaint was filed and therefore, he had signed the plaint himself. Inadvertently, paragraph 1(b) of the plaint was retained. The learned Single Judge has agreed with the respondent / plaintiff that deletion of paragraph 1(b) of the plaint did not amount to withdrawal of any admission and that the said amendment did not also change the basic structure of the suit, consequently, the amendment was allowed. Insofar as the amendment with regard to the sum of Rs 7.74 crores being substituted in place of Rs 7.40 cores appearing at various places in the plaint is concerned, the learned Single Judge has observed as under:

(3.) FROM the above extract, it is apparent that the figure of Rs 7,40,00,000/ as well as Rs 7,74,00,000/ have both been mentioned in the said paragraph. On totalling the items referred to in the above extract, the figure of Rs 7,74,00,000/ is obtained. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the figure of Rs 6,04,00,000/ is not correct and therefore, the figure of Rs 7.74 crores itself is a typographical error.