C.R.No.540 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.540 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 25, 2011 Mahinder Singh .....Petitioner v. Dharam Pal .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Bhim Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.2218-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. C.R.No,540 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 5.1.2011, Annexure P7, vide which application for amendment of plaint under Order VI rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by petitioner-plaintiff has been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell the suit property with the respondent- defendant on 10.8.2007. Suit property has been described in para No.2 of the plaint. Written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent- defendant in which it has been specifically pleaded that para no.2 of the plaint is wrong and that boundaries of the alleged plot has not been correctly given by plaintiff and that suit property is also not a plot and rather the same is a constructed house. Replication was filed by the C.R.No.540 of 2011 (O&M) -2- petitioner -plaintiff in which specific stand was taken by him denying para no.2 of the written statement and stated that property in dispute has been correctly described. However, plea has been taken that defendant has raised the construction over the plot after filing of the present suit. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned trial Court on 8.6.2009:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 10.8.2007, as prayed for ? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his possession over the plot in dispute? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action ? OPD 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties ? OPD 6. Relief.” Thereafter the case was fixed for evidence of petitioner- plaintiff. However, after availing opportunity for leading evidence, the present application for amendment of the plaint was filed taking the plea that due to typographical mistake, property has not been properly described in the plaint. Learned trial Court dismissed the said prayer of the petitioner- plaintiff for amendment of the plaint by observing as under:- “ By the proposed amendment applicant-plaintiff wants to change the entire substance of this case. The contradictions are being substituted by the proposed amendment and plaintiff himself is not sure whether it was plot or built up house. On the other hand plaintiff mentioned in the plaint plot bearing No.39 in Ward No.2 Kasba Nilokheri, Karnal, whereas in the application, applicant assert that it was a house. It is contradictory stand taken by the plaintiff himself and at the time of filing of written statement, defendant-respondent has disclosed all these facts but applicant-plaintiff remained silent C.R.No.540 of 2011 (O&M) -3- and as such the amendment cannot be allowed at this stage because it would totally introduce a new case and cause of action would also be changed. Moreover, after issues have been framed, the amendment cannot be allowed and the case is at the stage of evidence. Hence, the application being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. Law is well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another 2009(1) RCR (civil) 763 that plaintiff has no right to file application for amendment of plaint after the commencement of trial. Trial in this case has already been commenced after framing of issues and after fixing the case for evidence of the plaintiff. Moreover, it has been rightly observed by learned trial Court that mistake cannot be said to be a typographical mistake as despite specific plea having been taken by respondent-defendant in his written statement, no application for amendment was filed and rather the petitioner-plaintiff has taken a specific plea that the property in dispute has been correctly described. Petitioner- plaintiff has filed the suit regarding the same plot bearing No.39 situated in Ward No.2, Kasba Nilokheri, Karnal and now he intends to change the entire description of the property. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order and grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Law is well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. Hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. 25.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge C.R.No.540 of 2011 (O&M) -4-