C.R. No. 2314 of 2009 -1- ***** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2314 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 11.08.2010 Darshana Rani .......... Petitioner Versus Krishna alias Krishna Bala ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Mahajan, Advocate for the respondent. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.3.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Amritsar, vide which the application moved by the defendant / respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure stands accepted. The defendant / respondent filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amending the written statement to correct a typographical error i.e. the word 'not' which was not mentioned in one of the para of the written statement. The learned trial Court held, that it was merely a typographical error, therefore, allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The reasons given for allowing the amendment read as under :- C.R. No. 2314 of 2009 -2- ***** “4. Having heard arguments, I am of the view that the instant application needs to be allowed. Perusal of para no.1 of the plaint of plaintiff itself shows that plaintiff has taken the plea that defendant was owner in possession of the house property bearing khasra No. 405/406 private plot No. 19, measuring 111 sq. yards and in reply to this para it is mentioned in the written statement by defendant that defendant is owner and in possession of the house and it has been denied that replying defendant has purchased the same vide sale deed dated 12.6.74 and in case defendant has to take the plea that she is not owner in possession of Pvt. Plot No. 19 and that she did not purchase it vide sale deed dated 12.6.74, then such composite plea should have been incorporated in her written statement. This mistake thus appears to be only clerical mistake and shall not challenge the nature of the suit for its de-novo trial.” The learned counsel for the petitioner contended, that the learned trial Court committed an error in allowing the amendment of the written statement, after the commencement of the trial, as the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to allow the amendment after the commencement of the trial, in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is mandatory. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that by way of amendment the petitioner has been prejudiced, as the admission by the respondent could not be C.R. No. 2314 of 2009 -3- ***** withdrawn. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended, that he has purchased the property from the defendant, therefore, it was not permissible for him to deny that he was not the owner. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though, it can not be disputed, that no amendment after commencement of trial can be allowed, to implead the facts which were in his knowledge or could be known by due diligence, nor a party can be allowed to withdraw admission. The reading of the impugned order shows that if the whole para is read in totality, it is revealed, that the word 'not' was missed due to typographical error. A typographical error, apparent on the face of record can not be said to be admission, nor it can be said to be a new fact, which could not be pleaded after commencement of trial. The correction of typographical error would not fall under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as no new facts are being pleaded by the respondents. No merit. Dismissed. 11.08.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE