This single judge order allows a Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of an application to amend pleadings after the trial commenced, holding the trial court's decision was legal.
Revision petition dismissed with direction to dispose of the suit within two months; no costs awarded.
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 MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED
C.R.P.No.65 of 2011
ORDER
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed O.S.No.207 of 1998 in the Court of I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioners and respondent No.3 herein for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 04.04.1996. In the said suit, the petitioners herein filed I.A.No.819 of 2010 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to substitute the year 1998 in place of 1988 in the additional written statement at para No.1 of Line No.20 at Page No.4. They state that due to typographical mistake, the said mistake occurred. Respondents 1 and 2 opposed the application. Through order, dated 26.10.2010, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. The same is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Order VI Rule 17 CPC reads as under;
Amendment of pleadings-The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:
Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.
4. In the instant case, admittedly, the trial of the suit commenced and posted for the evidence of defendants. Therefore, the prohibition contained in the first part of the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI got attracted. The petitioners were under obligation to plead the reasons to satisfy the Court as to what prevented them from seeking amendment before the commencement of the trial. The affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of the I.A. is silent, in this regard. Further, in the written statement filed by the deceased defendant No.1, it is mentioned therein the year 1988 and as such, the trial Court held that there cannot be any typographical mistake and the said proposed amendment is only an after-thought and dismissed the I.A. by the order impugned. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
_____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J
Date:05.08.2011 sj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for amendment of pleadings filed after the commencement of trial can be allowed due to a typographical error.
Whether the trial court committed any illegality or irregularity in dismissing the application for amendment after the evidence phase had commenced.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
PETITIONERS
GHULAM MOHAMMED
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
