Delhi High Court
R P Mittal vs Sudhir Jain on 4 October, 2013
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 04.10.2013
+ FAO(OS) No. 447/2013
R P MITTAL ... Appellant
versus
SUDHIR JAIN ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Mr Jatinder Kumar Sethi, Advocate
For the Respondent : None
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
CM No. 15745/2013
The exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
FAO(OS) No. 447/2013 & CM No. 15744/2013
1. This appeal is preferred against an order dated 02.09.2013 passed
by a learned Single Judge of this court in I.A No. 3789/2012 filed under
Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC by the respondent /
plaintiff seeking to amend the plaint. The amendment sought was
deletion of para 1(b) of the plaint and to make necessary corrections in
respect of the alleged typographical error which occurred in various
paragraphs of the plaint by writing the figure (and words) Rs 7.40 crores
instead of Rs 7.74 crores. We may point out straightway that the
amendment application was filed before the commencement of the trial.
In fact, the plaint had been filed in January, 2012 and the amendment
application was filed within a month on 23.02.2012. Therefore, it is clear
that the amendments were sought by the plaintiff at the earliest stage.
Paragraph 1(b) of the plaint as it was originally filed read as under:-
"This plaint has been signed, verified and instituted
for and on behalf of the Plaintiff by Mr. Ashu Jain, s/o. Shri
M.S. Jain, resident of 122 South Park, Kalkaji, New Delhi
110019, who is an authorised representative of the Plaintiff
and is competent to sign, verify and institute this plaint for
and on behalf of the plaintiff as he has been authorized to do
so under and by virtue of registered Powers of Attorney
dated January 21, 2011 with Registration No. 390 in Book
No. 4, Volume 3,701 on pages 198 to 200 granted in his
favour by the plaintiff."
2. The amendment sought was the deletion of the above mentioned
paragraph 1(b). The deletion was sought on the ground that when the
plaintiff had instructed Mr Ashu Jain to sign, verify and institute the
plaint, he was abroad but had returned before the plaint was filed and
therefore, he had signed the plaint himself. Inadvertently, paragraph 1(b)
of the plaint was retained. The learned Single Judge has agreed with the
respondent / plaintiff that deletion of paragraph 1(b) of the plaint did not
amount to withdrawal of any admission and that the said amendment did
not also change the basic structure of the suit, consequently, the
amendment was allowed. Insofar as the amendment with regard to the
sum of Rs 7.74 crores being substituted in place of Rs 7.40 cores
appearing at various places in the plaint is concerned, the learned Single
Judge has observed as under:-
"Learned counsel for the Plaintiff further submits that in
Para-12 of the plaint though the total amount due and
payable to the plaintiff by the Defendant is Rs. 7.74 crores
which has been so mentioned while totalling the amount,
however, it has been wrongly written as Rs. 7.40 crores in
different paragraphs, that is, in the title of the suit, Paras-12,
13, 17 and the prayer clause. Since the errors are
typographical and would not change the fundamental nature
of the suit nor take away any admission, the application be
allowed. Further the suit was instituted in January, 2012,
the application seeking amendment was filed on 23rd
February, 2012 and hence even for the amendment in the
Court Fees Act, the court fee at the rate before the
notification dated 1st August, 2012 would be applicable."
3. Paragraph 12 of the plaint which has been referred to in the above
extract reads as under:-
"As on date (i.e., upto January 31, 2012) the Defendant owes
the Plaintiff an aggregate sum of Rs 7,40,00,000 (Rupees Seven
Crore Forty Lakh Only) made up as follows:
(i) Principal amount Rs 2,40,00,000
(ii) One-time transaction fee of 7.5% Rs 18,00,000
(iii) Interest @ 5% per month
compounded monthly from
December 29, 2006 to
January 31, 2012 Rs 6,04,00,000
Total: Rs 8,62,00,000
Less Paid: Rs 88,00,000
Grand Total: Rs 7,74,00,000"
4. From the above extract, it is apparent that the figure of Rs
7,40,00,000/- as well as Rs 7,74,00,000/- have both been mentioned in
the said paragraph. On totalling the items referred to in the above extract,
the figure of Rs 7,74,00,000/- is obtained. The learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the figure of Rs 6,04,00,000/- is not correct and
therefore, the figure of Rs 7.74 crores itself is a typographical error.
5. However, we are in agreement with a learned Single Judge that the
components mentioned in paragraph 12 add upto Rs 7.74 crores and,
therefore, the figure of Rs 7.40 crores appearing in different places of the
plaint could be regarded as typographical errors. It is another matter that
the plaintiff may or may not be entitled to the said claim or even to the
claim of Rs 6.04 crores as alleged in the plaint. That would be a subject
matter of trial.
6. We entirely agree with the learned Single Judge that the
amendments sought are for the proper adjudication of the suit and are
bona-fide and would also not cause any prejudice to the appellant /
defendant. Refusal of the amendments would also lead to multiplicity of
proceedings. The suit is at the initial stages and, therefore, there is no
reason as to why the amendments ought not to be allowed. The appeal
has no merit. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. The learned Single Judge had granted four weeks time to the
appellant to file written statement. That period expired a few days ago.
We extend the time for filing the written statement by a further period of
four weeks from today.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
OCTOBER 04, 2013
SU
