Proposed amendment does not change the nature and character of suit; application under Order 6 Rule 17 allowed

Punjab and Haryana High Court: This revision petition was filed before a Single Judge Bench comprising of Sudip Ahluwalia, J., against the order passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division) where an application under Order 6 Rule 17 for amendment of original plaint was rejected.

The facts of the case were that petitioner filed a suit for recovery of a certain amount given to respondent as a friendly loan. The petitioner alleged respondent of giving a post-dated check and before maturity of cheque dates, respondent died due to which petitioner had filed suit. The respondent defended the suit by stating that the deceased could not have given the cheque as the same was claimed to have been given during the time deceased was ill and later on 1st of February he died. Petitioner at this stage filed an application for an amendment to plaint where he wanted to change averments that the deceased had taken a loan and issued the cheques to him in the month of January 2014 instead of February. The application was dismissed by Trial Court on the ground that the aforementioned change not only set up an inconsistent suit but also reeks a mala fide intention.

The High Court viewed that the dispute was related to the time and month in which the cheque was made and petitioner seeks to rectify this error in original pleadings so as to make it consistent with the facts and circumstances.  It was found that the proposed amendment does not change the nature and character of the suit, therefore, the revision petition was allowed and impugned order was set aside. [Navjot Singh v. Satwinderpal Singh, 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 1570, decided on 11-10-2018]

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.