The judgment dismisses a revision petition challenging the allowance of an amendment in the plaint. The court held that since the amendment involved only a typographical error and caused no prejudice, the lower court correctly exercised its discretion, and no interference was warranted.
Revision petition dismissed. No costs.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
C.R.P. No. 1412 of 2011
Oral order:
This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 10.03.2001 passed by the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, allowing the application in I.A. No. 116 of 2001 in O.S. No. 270 of 2005, filed by the respondent seeking to permit him to carry out amendment in the plaint in relation to the share of defendant No. 1 in para No.3 of column (b) – as land admeasuring Acs.2.08 gts. in Sy.No. 654, situated at Garidapally village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, instead of land admeasuring Acs. 4.07 gts. in Sy. No. 723 situated at Garidapally village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order under revision.
There is no doubt that the respondent sought amendment of the plaint after the evidence of P.W.1 was over, but inasmuch as the amendment sought by the respondent was only a typographical error, and if amendment is allowed, the same would not change the nature of the suit and no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, the Court below allowed the present application filed by the respondent seeking to permit him to amend the plaint, as noted supra, and I find no reason whatsoever to interfere therewith in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
There is no merit in the C.R.P., and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
________________ N.V. RAMANA, J.
Dated: 15th April, 2011 KSR/IBL
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order allowing amendment of the plaint which the lower court held involved only a typographical error causing no prejudice.
Petitioner
Respondent
N.V. Ramana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
