Present : Mr. Ravinder Singh Advocate Vs. Punjab National Bank .... Petitioner - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1065301
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnDec-10-2012
AppellantPresent : Mr. Ravinder Singh Advocate
RespondentPunjab National Bank .... Petitioner
Excerpt:
c.r.no.7375 of 2012 (o&m) 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh. case no.: c.r.no.7375 of 2012 (o&m) date of decision : december 10, 2012 punjab national bank ...petitioner versus shri chajju ram and another ...respondents coram : hon'ble mr.justice l.n.mittal * * * present : mr.ravinder singh, advocate for the petitioner. * * * l.n.mittal, j. (oral) : c.m.no.30519-c-ii of 2012 : allowed as prayed for. main case : in this revision petition, filed under article 227 of the constitution of india by defendant no.2 punjab national bank, challenge is to order dated 18.09.2012 (annexure p-1).passed by the trial court, thereby allowing application (annexure p-2) moved by the respondents/plaintiffs for amendment of plaint and replication, subject to payment of rs.500/- as costs.c.r. no.7375 of 2012 (o&m) 2 plaintiffs have filed suit against petitioner bank for recovery of rs.3,00,000/-, on the basis of cheque amount of rs.3,00,000/- having not been paid to the plaintiffs by the defendant bank. in the original plaint, number of the cheque in question was mentioned as 450202 and serial numbers of the 100 cheques contained in the cheque-book were mentioned as 450201 to 450300. in amendment application (annexure p-2).it has been alleged that correct number of the disputed cheque is 45202 and correct serial numbers of the 100 cheques are 45201 to 45300. it was alleged that there has been typographical error in mentioning the numbers in the original plaint and replication, which are sought to be corrected by amendment. the application was opposed by defendants, having been moved at late stage i.e.at stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments. learned trial court, vide impugned order (annexure p-1).has allowed the amendment application, subject to payment of rs.500/- as costs. feeling aggrieved, defendant bank has filed this revision petition to challenge the said order. i have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. counsel for the petitioner, relying on judgment of hon'ble supreme court in the case of j. samuel and others versus gattu mahesh c.r.no.7375 of 2012 (o&m) 3 and others reported as 2012 (1) r.c.r. (civil) 903, contended that even clerical or typographical error cannot be allowed to be corrected by amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial, in view of order 6 rule 17 of the code of civil procedure. the contention is completely misconceived and devoid of substance. reliance on judgment of hon'ble supreme court in the case of j. samuel (supra) is completely misplaced as the same has no applicability to the facts of the instant case. in that case, suit was filed for specific performance of the agreement to sell. however, necessary ingredients of section 16 (c) of the specific relief act, for seeking specific performance of the agreement, were not pleaded in the plaint. objection to this effect was also taken in the written statement, but in spite thereof, amendment of plaint was not claimed at that stage. on the other hand, application for amendment of plaint was moved after final arguments had been heard in the suit. in these circumstances, the hon'ble supreme court held that proposed amendment of plaint could not be allowed. the said case is distinguishable on various grounds. in that case, the amendment sought did not relate to clerical or typographical error, but related to substantive pleading, whereas in the instant case, it is apparent that the amendment sought is only regarding clerical or typographical error in mentioning the correct numbers of the cheques as additional digit `0' was wrongly mentioned in the numbers in the original plaint. secondly, in the c.r.no.7375 of 2012 (o&m) 4 reported case, the amendment application was moved even after final arguments had been heard in the suit, whereas in the instant case, the amendment application has been moved before commencement of arguments, although at the stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments. thirdly, in the reported case, the defect regarding pleading to be taken by way of amendment, had been specifically pointed out in the written statement, but it has not been done so in the instant case, although the bank did plead that the cheque numbers mentioned by the plaintiffs in the plaint do not pertain to the defendant bank. however, the defendant bank knew the correct numbers of the cheques, but did not point out the clerical or typographical error regarding numbers of the cheques that had occurred in the plaint. for all these reasons, judgment in the case of j. samuel (supra) has no applicability in the instant case. on the other hand, even in the case of j. samuel (supra).it was observed that courts are meant to do substantial justice. the plaintiffs cannot be defeated merely because there was some typographical error in mentioning the numbers of cheques. in these circumstances, proposed amendment of plaint and replication has been rightly allowed, although amendment application was moved long after commencement of trial. however, the cost amount imposed by the trial court deserves to be enhanced because the amendment application was c.r.no.7375 of 2012 (o&m) 5 moved at a very late stage. except for this infirmity, there is no infirmity, much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial court so as to call for interference by this court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 of the constitution of india. i intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to respondents/plaintiffs so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and also to save the respondents of the financial burden they may have to bear in engaging counsel for the revision petition, if notice of the same is issued to them, because only cost amount is being enhanced by this order. accordingly, the instant revision petition is dismissed except that the plaintiffs shall pay rs.3,000/- as costs precedent, instead of rs.500/- imposed by the trial court, for proposed amendment of plaint and replication. december 10, 2012 ( l.n.mittal ) monika judge
Judgment:

C.R.No.7375 of 2012 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No.: C.R.No.7375 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : December 10, 2012 Punjab National Bank ...Petitioner versus Shri Chajju Ram and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL * * * Present : Mr.Ravinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

* * * L.N.MITTAL, J.

(Oral) : C.M.No.30519-C-II of 2012 : Allowed as prayed for.

Main Case : In this revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by defendant no.2 Punjab National Bank, challenge is to order dated 18.09.2012 (Annexure P-1).passed by the trial court, thereby allowing application (Annexure P-2) moved by the respondents/plaintiffs for amendment of plaint and replication, subject to payment of Rs.500/- as costs.C.R.

No.7375 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Plaintiffs have filed suit against petitioner Bank for recovery of Rs.3,00,000/-, on the basis of cheque amount of Rs.3,00,000/- having not been paid to the plaintiffs by the defendant Bank.

In the original plaint, number of the cheque in question was mentioned as 450202 and serial numbers of the 100 cheques contained in the cheque-book were mentioned as 450201 to 450300.

In amendment application (Annexure P-2).it has been alleged that correct number of the disputed cheque is 45202 and correct serial numbers of the 100 cheques are 45201 to 45300.

It was alleged that there has been typographical error in mentioning the numbers in the original plaint and replication, which are sought to be corrected by amendment.

The application was opposed by defendants, having been moved at late stage i.e.at stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments.

Learned trial court, vide impugned order (Annexure P-1).has allowed the amendment application, subject to payment of Rs.500/- as costs.

Feeling aggrieved, defendant Bank has filed this revision petition to challenge the said order.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner, relying on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.

Samuel and others versus Gattu Mahesh C.R.No.7375 of 2012 (O&M) 3 and others reported as 2012 (1) R.C.R.

(Civil) 903, contended that even clerical or typographical error cannot be allowed to be corrected by amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial, in view of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The contention is completely misconceived and devoid of substance.

Reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.

Samuel (supra) is completely misplaced as the same has no applicability to the facts of the instant case.

In that case, suit was filed for specific performance of the agreement to sell.

However, necessary ingredients of Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, for seeking specific performance of the agreement, were not pleaded in the plaint.

Objection to this effect was also taken in the written statement, but in spite thereof, amendment of plaint was not claimed at that stage.

On the other hand, application for amendment of plaint was moved after final arguments had been heard in the suit.

In these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that proposed amendment of plaint could not be allowed.

The said case is distinguishable on various grounds.

In that case, the amendment sought did not relate to clerical or typographical error, but related to substantive pleading, whereas in the instant case, it is apparent that the amendment sought is only regarding clerical or typographical error in mentioning the correct numbers of the cheques as additional digit `0' was wrongly mentioned in the numbers in the original plaint.

Secondly, in the C.R.No.7375 of 2012 (O&M) 4 reported case, the amendment application was moved even after final arguments had been heard in the suit, whereas in the instant case, the amendment application has been moved before commencement of arguments, although at the stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments.

Thirdly, in the reported case, the defect regarding pleading to be taken by way of amendment, had been specifically pointed out in the written statement, but it has not been done so in the instant case, although the bank did plead that the cheque numbers mentioned by the plaintiffs in the plaint do not pertain to the defendant bank.

However, the defendant bank knew the correct numbers of the cheques, but did not point out the clerical or typographical error regarding numbers of the cheques that had occurred in the plaint.

For all these reasons, judgment in the case of J.

Samuel (supra) has no applicability in the instant case.

On the other hand, even in the case of J.

Samuel (supra).it was observed that courts are meant to do substantial justice.

The plaintiffs cannot be defeated merely because there was some typographical error in mentioning the numbers of cheques.

In these circumstances, proposed amendment of plaint and replication has been rightly allowed, although amendment application was moved long after commencement of trial.

However, the cost amount imposed by the trial court deserves to be enhanced because the amendment application was C.R.No.7375 of 2012 (O&M) 5 moved at a very late stage.

Except for this infirmity, there is no infirmity, much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to respondents/plaintiffs so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and also to save the respondents of the financial burden they may have to bear in engaging counsel for the revision petition, if notice of the same is issued to them, because only cost amount is being enhanced by this order.

Accordingly, the instant revision petition is dismissed except that the plaintiffs shall pay Rs.3,000/- as costs precedent, instead of Rs.500/- imposed by the trial court, for proposed amendment of plaint and replication.

December 10, 2012 ( L.N.MITTAL ) monika JUDGE