AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri Murlidhar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri D.K. Tripathi, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Manoj Mishra along with Sri Shamim Ahmed on behalf of Respondent No. 1.
This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.8.2011 passed in Civil Revision No. 89 of 2009 Annexure-11 to the writ petition with a further prayer that the amendment application filed by Respondent No. 1 be decided after affording opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.
It appears that Respondent No. 1 had instituted Original Suit No. 778 of 2004, M/s Shyam Sangh Investment and Finance Private Ltd. and Ors. v. Abhishek Garg and Ors. for the cancellation of two sale deeds dated 8.1.98 and 7.6.03.
The Respondent No. 1 in the said suit filed application seeking amendment in the plaint. Basically the amendment sought was to substitute the date 4.6.98 in place of 8.1.98 of one of the sale deeds sought to be cancelled, appearing in the relief clause of the plaint.
Petitioner had filed objections against the said amendment application.
The amendment application was allowed on 2.12.08.
The Petitioner applied for recall of the said order but the application in that regard was rejected. Thereafter, Petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 89 of 2009 and the same was dismissed on 30.8.11.
Challenging the revisional order only the argument of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the amendment application dated 2.5.06 has been allowed without considering the objections of the Petitioner which were very much on record.
A perusal of the plaint of the suit reveals that the Petitioner in paragraph 16 had clearly mentioned the date of the sale deeds to be 4th June, 1998 and 7th June, 2003. It was these two sale deeds which in fact were in dispute and as such were sought to be cancelled. However, in the relief clause the date of one of the sale deeds was incorrectly mentioned as 8.1.98 in place of 4.6.98. The amendment was only in respect of change of the aforesaid date. The change of the aforesaid date in the plaint in no way changes or alters the nature of the suit and as such no error could be said to have been committed by the trial court in allowing the amendment.
As far as the objections of the Petitioner are concerned, no doubt the objections were on record and the trial court has failed to take the same in to consideration while passing the order allowing the amendment application nonetheless a perusal of the objections indicate that the objections even if considered could not have altered the decision as they were only of formal nature.
In Peethani Suryanarayana and Another Vs. Repaka Venkata Ramana Kishore and Others, their Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with an application concerning amendment of a plaint of a suit held that the court has power to allow amendment provided the application is bona fide and it does not cause injustice to the other side or does not effect the rights already approve to the other side. It has further been laid down that where the amendment is on account of some typographical error and causes no prejudice adherence to right of hearing would be a mere formality and if an application of such a nature is allowed without hearing the other side no exception to the same can be taken inasmuch as such an amendment could always be challenged in appeal.
The facts does not disclose or in any was establishes that the amendment application was not bona fide and the order allowing it would result in causing prejudice or injustice to the Petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of my writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.