CR No. 1414 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM Nos.4663,4664 & 15081-CII of 2008 And CR No. 1414 of 2008 Date of Decision: 20.08.2009 Amrik Singh ...Petitioner Vs. Jatinder Kaur ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Tribuwan Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.2.2008 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Nakodar vide which application moved by the plaintiff/respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) stands allowed. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance pleading therein that an agreement to sell was executed between the parties on 22.11.2004. The defendant failed to perform his part of contract in not CR No. 1414 of 2008 2 executing the conveyance deed. After issues were framed the plaintiff/respondent moved application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code to plead therein that in fact agreement was executed on 22.12.2004 and therefore, it became necessary to correct typographical error in the date as the wrong date of the agreement was mentioned in some of the paragraphs. The application for amendment was contested by taking a specific plea that the amendment sought was within the knowledge of the plaintiff/respondent, therefore, was not permissible after the commencement of trial, in view of the amended provision of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that in fact the agreement attached with the plaint, was dated 22.11.2004 and therefore, the averments made in the plaint could not be said to be a typographical error, rather attempt was being made to fill in the lacuna, as the stand taken by the petitioner that the date of purchase of stamp paper was 22.12.2004 and that the agreement of sale, was forged and fabricated document. The impugned order passed by the learned trial court reads as under:- “ The present order of mine shall dispose of an application dated 19.4.2007 moved by the plaintiff with the prayer for permission to amend the plaint regarding the date of the agreement to sell of 22.12.2004 inadvertently typed as 22.11.2004 and the mistake qua that fact in certain paragraphs of the plaint. It is prayed that the proposed amendment is in the CR No. 1414 of 2008 3 interest or justice and the permission may kindly be granted. 2. Upon notice, the defendant has contested this application alleging that the plaintiff has enjoyed five opportunities for the evidence. Thereafter moved this application, which would change the nature of the case and therefore, should not be allowed. 3. I have heard both the sides and have gone through the file carefully. The perusal of file shows that the issues were framed on 1.5.2006 and the application for temporary injunction on 2.5.2006. Thereafter, two opportunities were spent by the plaintiff, but no evidence was produced. However, the case is at its initial stage and the proposed amendment is not against the law. Therefore, the application is allowed, subject to cost of Rs.200/-.” The reading of the order shows that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner /defendant have not been considered, nor any reason given for allowing the amendment. The order is totally non- speaking. This revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside, and the case is remanded back to the learned trial court to decide the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code afresh in accordance with law by giving reasons for allowing or disallowing the amendment. (Vinod K.Sharma) 20.08.2009 Judge rp