This revision petition challenged an order allowing amendment to a plaint to correct a typographical error replacing 'leave' with 'relief' in reference to Section 92 of CPC. The court held that correcting a typo does not imply grant of leave to sue and dismissed the revision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.294 of 2008(O&M) Decided on : 11.09.2009
Maharwal Khewaji Trust, Faridkot
... Petitioner
versus
Major Jagdev Singh Brar & others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
Present : Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. KVS Kang, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. G.S.Brar, Advocate for the respondents.
AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL)
This revision petition has been filed against the order
dated 29.11.2007 allowing the application for amendment, moved by the respondents. The respondents had filed a suit dated 13.08.2003 challenging the continuation of the petitioners
as Trustees, Para No.5(c) of the plaint was in the following terms:
“That the plaintiffs seek relief of this Hon'ble Court for institution of this suit under Section 92 of the C.P.Code and it may be mentioned herein that in granting the relief the Court need not issue the notice to the defendants, as held in
AIR – 1989-All-194
CR No.294 of 2008
-2-
1991-SC-221
AIR-1982-Pb.-137
It is further, submitted that the object of this suit shall be defeated and frustrated and the defendants shall gain time to cover up the breaches of the trust and the irregularities mentioned in Schedule B by manipulation of the records which is solely in their possession and power.”
Written statement dated 20.11.2003 was filed and reply to para No.5(c) was as follows:
“Contents of sub para (c) of para No.5 of the plaint, are wrong, incorrect, hence denied. Plaintiffs are not entitled to seek any relief by filing the present suit under Section 92 of CPC. They have no locus standi to file the present suit nor the Court has any jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. No suit can be decided without any notice to the adversaries. The case law cited is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no question of defeating the objects of the Trust because suit has been filed on frivolous and untenable grounds and is very likely to fail. There is no question of plaintiffs being beneficiaries of the trust in any way.”
Thereafter, on 28.09.2006, the petitioners filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the respondents had not made any prior
CR No.294 of 2008
-3-
application seeking permission to sue as enjoined by Section 92 (1) of CPC. It is, thereafter, that the respondents filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC claiming that for the word “relief” which occurred at two places in para No.5(c) (supra) the word “leave” should be read since this was a typographical mistake.
As mentioned above, it is against the allowing of this amendment that this revision petition has been filed. At the very outset, this Court is of the opinion that keeping in view the tenor of the averments made in para No.5(c) (supra) where reference has been made to Section 92(1) it cannot be gainsaid that what the plaintiffs were seeking was “leave” and the word “relief” has been inserted due to typographical error. Learned counsel has argued that if this application is allowed, the respondents will seek to take an unfair advantage in so much as, they will be able to plead that the amendment having been allowed, it would be deemed that when the notice was issued in the original plaint, implied leave was granted.
In my opinion, no such beneficial inference can be drawn by the respondents. What the Court has done is merely permitted the respondents to correct a typographical error. It will not be permissible for the respondents to argue that merely because of this typographical error having been corrected any implied permission was granted to them to continue the suit. The question whether the suit fulfills the condition of Section 92
CR No.294 of 2008
-4-
(1) of CPC would have to be decided by the Court independently on the application under Order 7 Rule 11 filed by the petitioners. With this clarification this revision petition is disposed of.
Parties through counsel are directed to appear before
the Trial Court on 21.10.2009.
September 11, 2009 ( AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a typographical error in a plaint allowing leave to sue implies grant of permission to continue the suit.
Whether the amendment application allows implied permission to sue under Section 92 of CPC.
Maharwal Khewaji Trust, Faridkot
Major Jagdev Singh Brar & others
Ajay Tewari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
