L.N.MITTAL, J. - (1.) PLAINTIFF Nathi Ram @ Natha has filed this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ­ CPC) assailing order dated 28.05.2013 passed by the trial court, thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-1) filed by the plaintiff for amendment of plaint.
(2.) THE plaintiff alleged in the amendment application that due to typographical error and inadvertence of counsel for the plaintiff, the facts sought to be pleaded by amendment, could not be pleaded in original plaint. Proposed amendments in plaint are specified in the application and are reproduced hereunder :- "a) "That in forth line of para no.6 of the plaint after the word the ancestral land and before the word nucleus the words and the earning of joint family i.e. by plaintiff, plaintiff's mother Buji and father Chhailu" inserted. "the plaintiffs no.2 and 3 namely Salinder b) Singh and Dara Singh of Civil Suit No.701/1992 (now defendants no.2 and 3) were minor at the time of filing and decision of the suit no.701/1992 and they were not sued through any of their guardian and as per law minor cannot be filed any suit without guardian. The plaintiff wants to amend the plaint to the extent and inserted the said fact as sub para no. g of para no. 7 of the plaint." "That the date 14.03.2010 be inserted c) instead of date 16.03.2010 in para no. 8, para no. 9 and para no. 12 of the plaint." I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner, relying on judgment of this Court in the case of Monika vs. Sandeep reported as 2013 (2) Civil Court Cases 496 (P&H), contended that typographical error can be rectified by amendment of pleading even after commencement of trial. Placing reliance on another judgment of this Court namely Balbir Singh and others vs. Rakesh Kumar and another reported as 2013 (3) Civil Court Cases 035 (P&H), it was contended that amendment of pleading can be allowed even after commencement of trial, if the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the issue before commencement of trial. Reliance has also been placed on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, passed in the case of Abdul Rehman and another vs. Mohd. Ruldu and others reported as 2012 (4) RCR (Civil) 481.;