DSI SOLUTION PVT. LTD. Vs. NARESH KUMAR HOODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/defendant by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India has assailed order dtd. 11/8/2025 of the learned trial court, whereby application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking permission to sign and attest the verification clause at foot of the plaint was allowed. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner/defendant, I do not find it a fit case to even issue notice.

(2.) Broadly speaking, it appears that the respondent/plaintiff, while instituting a suit for money recovery duly signed the plaint and even the supporting affidavit, but due to inadvertence did not sign the verification clause, though the same was textually complete. It is in order to rectify that error, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The application was opposed by the petitioner/defendant mainly on the ground of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC as the trial had already commenced upon framing of issues. The learned trial court after detailed discussion, relying upon a judicial precedent from the Supreme Court in the case of Uday Shankar Triyar vs Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh & Anr., (2006) 1 SCC 75, took a view that what was sought by the respondent/plaintiff was only rectification of an irregularity and no substantive amendment had been sought, so the application was allowed.

(3.) Today, the only argument advanced on behalf of petitioner/defendant is that since trial had commenced, in view of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the application for amendment was liable to be dismissed. In response to a specific query, learned counsel for petitioner/defendant submits that as on the date of filing of the amendment application, no witness of either side had stepped into the box and only issues had been framed. It is trite that mere framing of issues does not mean commencement of trial. The trial would commence only once the first witness steps into the box and tenders chief examination affidavit. That being so, the argument that the amendment sought was hit by proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC is not correct.