PARVINDER SINGH @ PINDA AND OTHERS Vs. DIDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 22.05.2018 (copy Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nabha, allowing the application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC by the respondent-plaintiff, seeking amendment of his suit. In the application, it was alleged that a counsel had been engaged by the plaintiff to file a suit seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 25.02.2011, but instead of doing that the Advocate "inadvertently filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the petitioners-defendants" and the plaintiff not being conversant with either English or 'legal language', signed the plaint and power of attorney in favour of the said counsel (Smt. Anjana Guliany, Advocate), in good faith.

(2.) Upon notice of the application for amendment, the petitionersdefendants appeared before the learned Civil Judge and filed a written reply to the effect that a "false suit" had been got filed through the previous Advocate, seeking permanent injunction, and with the plaintiff having sworn an affidavit in which he admitted the contents of the plaint to be correct, duly read over and explained to him in Punjabi, it was actually not the fault of the previous counsel, as she had filed the suit as per the instructions of the plaintiff.

(3.) Upon hearing the parties, the learned Civil Judge held that the amendment of pleadings can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings, in terms of Order 6 Rule 17, if the amendment was found to be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question involved in the dispute between the parties, even though the proviso to the said rule stipulated that no such amendment would be allowed after the trial had commenced, unless the Court came to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party (seeking the amendment) could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.