URMILA DUBOLIA Vs. CHHAVIRAM SHAKYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner/defendant has challenged the order dated 23.6.2012 (Annexure P-1) whereby his application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. (Annexure P-6) is rejected by the Court below.

(2.) SHRI Harish Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by preferring the said application the earlier pleadings were sought to be strengthened and clarified which is permissible. By criticizing the order of Court below, he relied on (2005) 13 SCC 89 (Sajjan Kumar Vs. Ram Kishan). He also relied on (2006) 6 SCC 498 (Baldev Singh and others V.Manohar Singh and another) and 2008(3) MPLJ 460 (Usha Devi V. Rijwan Ahmad and others). The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a lenient view needs to be taken for the purpose of permitting amendment in written statement. When by way of amendment pleadings are sought to be clarified, strengthened and elaborated, amendment should be leniently allowed.

(3.) IT is also noteworthy that the Apex Court has given aforesaid opinion after considering the judgment of Baldev Singh (supra) and the judgment in Baldev Singh is distinguished by the Supreme Court. This view in Vidyabai (supra) was again considered by the Supreme Court in (2012) 2 SCC 300 (J.Samuel and others V. Gattu Mahesh and others). Thus, the very purpose of bringing amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. was to ensure that litigation is not unnecessarily prolonged by way of amendments after commencement of the trial and it was with a view to ensure speedy trial. IT is also necessary to appreciate that the Apex Court in J.Samuel (supra) even did not permit a typographical mistake to be corrected by way of amendment. In para 21 and 22 of the judgment in J.Samuel (supra), it is held that the person who has prepared the plaint, signed and verified the plaint has to show some attention and rectify the same in time. Similarly, before filing the written statement, one has to ensure that necessary averments with necessary precision and accuracy is mentioned in the pleadings. In any case, if one desires any elaboration it is permissible before commencement of the trial.