DHARMENDER Vs. YASHPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell preferred by the present revisionist Dharmender (then plaintiff) against present respondent Yashpal (then defendant), an application was moved by the revisionist under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the date of the agreement to sell from 10/9/2013 to 11/9/2013 on account of being a typographical error. It was after response of the defendants was sought, who opposed it, the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul through impugned findings dtd. 17/9/2018 dismissed the application. The same is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

(2.) Upon hearing Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. Manish Mehta, Advocate for the respondent and perusing the records of the case.

(3.) The parties are disputing over an agreement to sell which in fact was entered on 11/9/2013 but due to mistake of the plaintiff same has been denoted as 10/9/2013. The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. P. R. Yadav, Advocate that being an error in view of the law laid down in 'Santokh Singh and others vs. Gurmeet Singh' 2015 (4) RCR (Civil) 294; 'Rajeev Sharma and others vs. M/s Vivek Prints' 2017 (5) RCR (Civil) 59; 'Gurcharan Singh vs. Sukhdev Kumar' 2017(5) RCR (Civil) 376; 'M/s Hi. Sheet Industries vs. Litelon Limited' 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 324; and 'Varun Pahwa vs. Mrs. Renu Chaudhary' 2019 (2) RCR (Civil) 383, since it is not going to alter the nature of the suit and the relief, it ought to have been allowed. But the same is opposed tooth and nail by Mr. Manish Mehta, Advocate for the respondent claiming that most of the plaintiff witnesses have been examined and cross-examined and if amendment is allowed at this stage it would change the very nature of the suit.