TEJINDER SINGH Vs. HARJIT SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and respondent No.5 filed suit for separate possession before the trial Court against respondents Nos. 1 to 4, herein, by way of partition of 1/3 share of the residential house more fully described in the cause title of the plaint. In that suit, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was moved and following para No. 2-A was sought to be added:-

(2.) It was averred that while drafting the case, the aforementioned para could not be typed inadvertently and it was omitted. However, when the case was fixed for cross-examination of DW-1, then this omission was noticed. It was averred that the aforesaid omission is inadvertent and typographical error, that could not be detected earlier and as soon as the same was noticed, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was moved. It was averred that the proposed amendment would not change the nature of the pleadings. So, the prayer for acceptance of this application was, thus, made.

(3.) Respondents Nos. 1 to 4, herein (defendants before the trial Court) averred that there was no inadvertent error on the part of the petitioner and respondent No.5 and the application was moved only to prolong the proceedings of the case. It was averred that the proposed amendment was very much available to the petitioner and respondent No.5 at the time of filing the suit and they had already got amended their plaint and this is the second application. Such application was not maintainable, as the evidence by the petitioner and respondent No.5 (who are plaintiffs before the trial Court) have already been concluded and the case is now fixed for the evidence of the defendants. It was denied that there was any typographical mistake, as alleged in the application. Rather, it was averred that the entire cause of action will change and the case will reopen, if the application is allowed. So, it was averred that the proposed amendment was very much in the knowledge of the petitioner and respondent No.5, herein, at the time of filing the suit. Consequently, prayer for dismissal of application was, thus, made.