RAMESH CHAND SHARMA Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant-petitioner, Ramesh Chand Sharma, has challenged the order dated 11.1.2013 filed by the Additional District Judge No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby the learned Jude has rejected his application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, for permitting certain amendment in the written-statement filed by him.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that in April 2009 the plaintiff-respondent, Banshidhar Sharma, filed a civil suit against the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner filed his written-statement wherein in para 13 he has typed the words "xxx xxx xxx" [valuation of the property is too high], instead of the words "xxx xxx xxx" [lesser valuation of the property]. Since the valuation of the property would determine the court-fees to be paid by the plaintiff-respondent, and since the petitioner claimed that he had discovered this typographical error much later, he filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. However, by order dated 11.1.2013 the learned Judge has dismissed his application. Hence this petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Arvind Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently raised the contention that the application had been filed for correcting a typographical mistake. Moreover as the court-fees to be submitted by the plaintiff-respondent would depend on the valuation of the property, and as such payment of court-fees would have an impact on the maintainability of the civil suit, the amendment proposed by him should have been allowed. Moreover, such an amendment would not adversely affect the interest of the plaintiff-respondent. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied on the case of Usha Balashaheb Swami & others v. Kiran Appaso Swami & others, 2007 5 SCC 602. Lastly, he has contended that even if it is held that the application was filed after an inordinate delay, the plaintiff-respondent can be compensated by imposition of cost. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel relied on the case of B.K.N. Pillai v. P. Pillai & another, 2000 AIR(SC) 614.