Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 25 CS SCJ 694/23
AUTOLANE COMPANY Vs. MOGLIX PVT LTD
21.11.2025
Present: Sh. Nirmal Kishore, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Ms. Aarjoo Singh, Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
Application u/o VI rule 17 CPC argued.
It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that vide
present application, the plaintiff has sought amendment regarding the
grammatical mistakes and incorrect drafting of original plaint. It is also
submitted that cause of action has not been changed.
Per contra, ld. Counsel for defndant has filed reply and
argued that in garb of applciation u/o VI rule 17 CPC, the plaintiff is trying
to redraft the whole plaint changing the nature of the suit. Ld. Counsel has
prayed tha application be dismissed.
Arguments heard. Record perused. It is a settled law in
respect of Order VI rule 17 CPC that amendments can be allowed, when the
proposed amendment do not change the cause of action and nature of the
suit. As per the amended plaint, the plaintiff has proposed to correct the
paragraphs in the original plaint. However, from the bare perusal of
proposed amendment no change in the cause of action or nature of suit is
seen. In the opinion of this Court, in the peculiar circumstances of the case,
application u/o VI rule 17 CPC is to be allowed for clearing the grammatical
mistakes as well as the averments made in the original plaint.
Since the matter is pending since 2023, the application stands
allowed subject to payment costs of Rs 2,000/- to be paid to the defendant
on NDOH.
Plaintiff is directed to supply the deficient copy within a
week from today. Defendant is at liberty to file W/S within 30 days from
the date of supply with a copy to opposite side. To come up for further
proceedings on 18.03.2026.
(Ajay Singh Parihar)
ACJ-cum-ARC/North
Rohini Court/21.11.2025
-- 1 of 1 --