Civil Revision No.6232 of 2007 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6232 of 2007 Date of Decision: February 27, 2008 Harpreet Singh Aulakh ...Petitioner VERSUS Madan Lal Aggarwal & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Arvind Mittal, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Being aggrieved against the order rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for amendment of the plaint, he has filed the present revision petition. The petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint dated 24.9.2003, so as to claim the relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated Civil Revision No.6232 of 2007 : 2 : 12.4.2003. The petitioner-plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration to declare gift deed dated 13.6.2003 as illegal, null and void having been executed to defraud the petitioner and to defeat the execution of the agreement to sell dated 12.4.2003. Along with the said prayer, consequential relief of permanent injunction is also sought. By way of amendment, the petitioner claimed a relief of possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 12.4.2003. The respondents herein raised number of objections, including the amendment being barred by limitation and that it will change the nature of entire cause of action. It was further pleaded that application for amendment was not inconsonance with Sub-rule (2) added by way of amendment by the High Court on 1.11.1966. As per the Sub-rule, every application for amendment is to be in writing and is to state the specific amendments which are sought to be made indicating words or paragraph to be added or omitted or substituted in the original pleadings. The trial Court has declined the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the application filed by the petitioner would not meet the parameters prescribed by Sub-rule (2) as referred above. The Court has not gone into other grounds of challenge raised. Mr.Baldev Raj Mahajan, counsel for the petitioner relies upon the case of B.L.Kapoor Versus Union of India and another, 18 (1980) Delhi Law Times 378 to say that the failure to state specific amendments sought to be made indicating words or paragraphs cannot be considered fatal when the rule is substantially Civil Revision No.6232 of 2007 : 3 : complied with by filing the proposed amended plaint. The High court of Delhi, while interpreting Order 6 Rule 17, as amended in Punjab, Haryana and applicable in Delhi, has held that nothing much would turn on such like objection which is described as purely hypertechnical in nature when amended rule is substantially complied with by filing a plaint along with the application seeking amendment. The relevant observations of the Court in this regard are as under:- “The application for amendment is vehemently opposed by the respondents on two grounds. In the first instance, it is urged that it does not state the specific amendments which are sought to be made indicating the words of paragraphs, to be added or omitted or substituted in the original plaint/application as required by the amendment introduced by Punjab and Haryana and applicable to Delhi in the shape of sub-rule (2), Rule 17, Order 6. Since the plaintiff has filed an amended plaint incorporating the proposed amendment, I do not think much would turn on this objection which is purely hypertechnical in nature; the amended rule having been substantially complied with. The counsel would also refer to the case of Tarlok Singh Versus Parsinno, 1990(2) P.L.R. 431 to say that such technical irregularities cannot be taken into account to deny prayer for amendment. In the case of Tarlok Singh (supra), defendant had sought amendment of the written statement but had not filed amended written statement along with the application seeking amendment. This was termed to be a technical irregularity only to Civil Revision No.6232 of 2007 : 4 : have any effect on the prayer made. In this case also, the contention of the respondent's counsel was that the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC were not strictly complied with while making an application for amendment. This Court observed that on this technicality, the prayer for amendment cannot be denied if otherwise the defendants were entitled to get the mistake rectified by the amendment. The counsel would also refer to Karam Singh and another Versus Baru Singh, 1966-68 SUPPLE. The Punjab Law Reporter 532. While talking about Order 6 Rule 17(2), this court observed that all rules of procedure are nothing but handmaids of justice and must be construed to that end. The Court has held:- “It is correct that the learned Additional District Judge has honoured the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 17 of Order 6, Civil Procedure Code in breach. But the question is, should the order be set aside merely on account of that irregularity?. In my opinion, the answer to this question, in the circumstances of the case, must be in the negative. The objection is purely technical. By means of the amendment, the plaintiff was allowed only to describe the suit property with greater particularity. No injustice was, therefore, caused to either party. It must be remembered that all rules of procedure are nothing but handmaids of justice and must be construed to that end. To recall the words of Lord Justice Bowen in Cropper v. Smith, the object of Courts is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for mistakes they make in Civil Revision No.6232 of 2007 : 5 : the conduct of their cases by deciding otherwise than in accordance with their rights..... as soon as it appears that the way in which a party has framed his case will not lead to a decision of the real matter in controversy, it is as much a matter of right on his part to have it corrected if it can be done without injustice as anything else in the case is a matter of right.” It is, thus, noticed that violation of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 17, Order 6 is only a technical irregularity which cannot be pressed to reject the prayer of the party on that ground alone. As observed by Delhi High Court in the case of B.L.Kapoor (supra) that merely because the specific amendments or words or paragraphs to be added or omitted etc. are not mentioned would not be a reason to deny the amendment when the rule would stand substantially complied with by filing of the plaint with the proposed amendment. The order passed by the trial court in declining the prayer of the petitioner, as such, cannot be sustained. The same is set-aside. Since the trial Court has not considered the plea of amendment of the petitioner on merits and had held against him on this hypertechnical ground, it would be appropriate to remand the case back to the trial Court for deciding the application afresh after hearing the parties. The present revision petition is accordingly disposed of. February 27, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE Civil Revision No.6232 of 2007 : 6 :