VIGYAN SHASTRI Vs. RUSOMA LABORATORIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dtd. 29/3/2022 (Annexure P-1) passed in Civil Suit No.1-A/2015 by the Vth Civil Judge, Junior Division, Indore whereby, the application dtd. 11/3/2022 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 of the C.P.C. filed by the petitioner/plaintiff has been rejected on the ground of absence of due diligence shown by the petitioner/plaintiff.

(2.) The case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that due to typographical error, the it could not mention the proper survey number of the disputed property as in para 10 of the plaint, it is mentioned as Survey No. 149 instead of Survey Nos.253, 249, 250, 251 and 252, although all the other particulars of the property are identical and there is no change in its description as its boundaries which are also the same as also the area which is 4.09 acres.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that, it is true that the petitioner/plaintiff could not file the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC earlier, but as it is only a clerical error even if the application is filed subsequent to closure of the evidence, on the date of final hearing, the application ought to have been allowed as the petitioner does not intend to lead any further evidence in support of the aforesaid amendment nor any additional document is required to be filed as the pleadings are complete in respect of the property in question and the only difficulty is the description of the Survey numbers which have been wrongly mentioned by the plaintiff in the map which was sough to to be rectified by way of the amendment application which has been dismissed as aforesaid.