Court Allows Correction of Clerical Error in Land Description, Ensuring Fair Trial Before Commencement
In a significant decision, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld a trial court's order allowing the amendment of pleadings in a civil suit at its nascent stage, reaffirming the judiciary's commitment to ensuring fair trial practices. The judgment, delivered by Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, addresses the procedural intricacies involved when amendments are sought early in legal proceedings.
The case, titled Nikhil v. M/s Shourya Industries, revolved around a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against interference with the suit property. The plaintiff, M/s Shourya Industries, sought to amend the plaint to correct a clerical error in the khasra number and land description, an oversight identified shortly after the suit's filing in October 2025. The trial court permitted this amendment under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), considering the suit's nascent stage and the absence of a filed written statement by the defendants.
Counsel for the petitioner, Nikhil, challenged the trial court's decision, arguing that the amendment altered the cause of action and changed the case's nature due to the significant increase in the land's area from 00-16-00 bighas to 02-19-00 bighas. They contended that the amendment violated the due diligence requirement under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC, which restricts amendments post-trial commencement unless diligent efforts to raise the matter earlier are demonstrated.
However, the respondent's counsel maintained that the amendment was merely clerical, not altering the suit's nature or cause of action. They argued that the amendment was necessary to correct the land description error and was filed promptly after the suit's initiation, thus causing no prejudice to the petitioner.
Justice Goel, after reviewing the trial court's reasoning and procedural context, found no merit in the petitioner's claims. He emphasized that the amendment was limited to correcting the khasra number and land description, a move permissible under the CPC's provisions. The court noted that the due diligence requirement does not apply in instances where amendments are sought before the trial's commencement and prior to any written statements being filed.
Furthermore, Justice Goel highlighted that the amendment did not alter the cause of action or change the suit's nature, as the defendants could address the amended pleadings in their forthcoming written statements. The court affirmed the trial court's lenient approach, ensuring that the real questions in controversy could be determined without prejudice to any party involved.
The decision underscores the judiciary's role in facilitating fair trial processes, particularly in procedural matters like pleadings amendments. It reinforces the principle that amendments correcting clerical errors, especially at the initial stages of proceedings, are essential for justice delivery.
The judgment serves as a precedent for similar cases, highlighting the importance of timely and correct pleadings in civil suits, thus preserving the integrity of legal proceedings.
Bottom Line:
Amendment of pleadings under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC - Amendment permissible to correct clerical errors at the nascent stage of proceedings before trial commences - No alteration of cause of action or change in the nature of the suit due to amendment.
Statutory provision(s): Order VI, Rule 17 CPC
Nikhil v. M/s Shourya Industries, (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2833528
