Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 29 CS SCJ 708/24
Jagdish Singh Vs. Anupama Gupta
05.03.2025
Present: Sh Anuj Kumar, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Sh Abhimanyu Singhla, Ld counsel for defendant.
Matter is at the stage of arguments on application u/o 6 rule
17 CPC filed on behalf of plaintiff.
Ld counsel for plaintiff submits that the Sector of property
in question in the document of plaintiff filed on record is mentioned
Sector-23 but due to typographical mistake inadvertently has been filed
in plaint as Sector-27 and similarly, Sector -27 has been mentioned due
to typographical mistake in the application u/o 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC as
well as in the site plan. He further submits that he wants to file amended
plaint, application and site plan with the correct Sector number i.e.
Sector-23. He further submits that the amendment is only with regard to
the mentioning of Sector-23 in place of Sector-27 in the abovesaid
documents.
Per contra, Ld counsel for the defendant submits that the
application u/o 6 rule 17 CPC is not tenable as the scope of amendment
is limited to the pleadings and does not extend to altering the annexures
attached to the plaint or any application. He further submits that as per
the site plan the Sector is 27. He further submits that the site plan must
correspond to the property i.e. the subject matter of the suit and cannot
be replaced to represent a property that has not been formally described
or included in the case and therefore, the site plan cannot be amended.
He further submits that it is not clear how a prayer in the suit could be
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
amended u/o 6 rule 17 CPC as the prayer does not fall within the scope
of pleadings.
Heard. Record perused.
The amendment sought by the plaintiff will not change the
nature of the suit nor the same is malafide nor the plaintiff wants to
withdraw any admission by way of amendment. Rather the plaintiff
wants to clarify his stand on a mistake that has occurred due to
typographical error. The plaintiff only wants to mention Sector-23 in
place of Sector-27 in the plaint, application u/o 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC and
the site plan. Since the matter is at the its initial stage, no prejudice will
be caused to the opposite party if the amendment is allowed. Further, the
amendment is very much necessary to avoid future dispute and
complications in the suit with regard to the address.
In view of the above discussion, application u/o 6 rule 17
CPC filed by plaintiff is disposed off as allowed. Plaintiff is directed to
file the amended plaint along with amended application u/o 39 rule 1 and
2 CPC and amended site plan.
List the matter for further proceedings on 23.05.2025.
(Arjun Kirar)
Civil Judge-N/W District
Rohini Courts/05.03.2025
-- 2 of 2 --