The court always gives relief to amend the pleading of the party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide or that by his blunder he had caused injury to his opponent which cannot be compensated for by an order of cost. Hence, a party cannot be denied the only redress only because of an error, fault, inadvertence, or even a violation of procedural laws. The High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Mukesh Kawadiya vs Manish Kediya [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1829/2020] by Single Bench consisting of Hon’ble Shri Justice Prakash Gupta.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for the recovery of money against the respondents. The respondents filed their written statements. Thereafter issues were framed. The plaintiff applied for an amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC mentioning therein that inadvertently due to typographical error, in the cause title, words owner of a firm Ravi Kumar Nirmal Kumar were not mentioned in furtherance of the name of respondents. Hence, the writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents are the owner of various firms which are being run in different names. He further submits that the bills, description of which were given in the plaint, are related to the firm and those bills were available on record. The fact that the incorrect cause title was filed due to typographical error is well established from the bills themselves, which are available on record. The petitioner applied to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which has been dismissed by the Commercial Court in an arbitrary and illegal manner.
Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the same and submitted that the petitioner had applied to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to delay the proceedings in the suit. They submit that if the amendment, as sought for, is allowed, it would change the nature of the suit. Hence the impugned order passed by the Commercial Court is just and reasonable and no interference therewith is required by this Court.
Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahila Ramkali Devi & Ors., it was held that “It is well settled that rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of rules of procedure. The court always gives relief to amend the pleading of the party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide or that by his blunder he had caused injury to his opponent which cannot be compensated for by an order of cost”
While allowing the petition the court observed that “when the error was apparently due to typographical error, the Commercial Court is found to have committed material illegality while passing the impugned.” Further held that “the power to grant amendment to pleadings is intended to serve the needs of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitations.”
