MOHAN RAM Vs. ANNAPOORANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision has been filed against the rejection of the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking amendment of the plaint on the ground that some clerical mistakes have been crept in to the plaint regarding the dates mentioned in the plaint. It is also seen that the numbers of the paragraphs are also not been correctly given in the original plaint. Therefore, the petition has been filed seeking amendment of those defects. The Trial Court has rejected the said application on the ground that no explanation has been given for filing the application belately after the trial has begun.

(2.) Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this present revision. It is seen from the facts that the suit has been filed for specific performance. On perusal of the petition filed for the amendment would show that the amendment sought for, is mostly clerical in nature and also correction of certain dates which have crept in by oversight. An affidavit has been filed stating that only when the petitioner made himself ready for the trial, the said mistake was noted. Therefore it was stated that the delay is neither wilful nor default and in any case no prejudice would be caused to the respondent.

(3.) This court is of the view that, as correctly contended by the learned Counsel the proposed amendment is only clerical in nature and in any case the same would not amount to introducing new cause of action or a new case. Therefore under those circumstances the order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained. Moreover sufficient reason has been given by the petitioner for not filing the application earlier. It has been held that even a wrong description of the property would entitle the petitioner to file an application for amendment. What is to be seen is to whether the amendment is necessary for deciding the issue between the parties and if there is any prejudice that would be caused to the respondent. In the judgment reported in,Ushadevi v. Rijwan and Ors.,2008 3 MLJ 287 it has been held that wrong description of property can be amended even if there is a lack of due diligence. In Puran Ram v. Bhaguram and Anr., 2008 2 CTC 224 the amendment regarding the description of the property in the plaint to be allowed liberally. Therefore taking into consideration of the above said legal compensation and on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case this Court is of the opinion that the amendment sought for has to be allowed. Accordingly the order of the Court below is set aside and the revision is allowed.