The Himachal Pradesh High Court has allowed a petitioner’s application for amendment in the title land suit, while observing that the ultimate object for dispensation of justice is that parties should get justice and cases should not be heard on technical ground.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia on October 5 heard the Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioner, challenging the trial court order of February 6, 2019, whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement was dismissed.
The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents maintained a suit for possession against the petitioner-defendant No 1/ (Bihari Lal). When the matter was listed for final arguments, it was noticed that there were clerical and typographical mistakes in para 5 of the written statement claiming adverse possession, even otherwise also, defendant No 1 never intended to claim adverse possession, as even in para 1 of the written statement, defendant No 1 clearly stated that Bansi Lal, son of Mohan, was in possession of the suit land and he became owner by way of adverse possession.
The Defendant No 1 cannot claim adverse possession and words, as have come in para-5, with respect to claiming adverse possession by him, sought to be amended. Similarly in para 5, in fourth line of the written statement, words “the defendants” were sought to be replaced with words “Shri Khushia”.
Senior Counsel Ajay Sharma appeared on behalf of the petitioner. He argued that words “the defendants” in para 5 of the written statement in fourth line has occurred due to the typographical mistake and the same was required to be amended, as being deleted.
He said the case of the petitioner-defendant No.1 is that a person, namely Bansi Lal, was in adverse possession of the suit land, since 1957 and after he perfected his title, land was partitioned between the co-sharer and one of his successor Shri Khushia, inducted defendant, as a tenant on the suit land and inadvertently due to the typographical mistake words “the defendants”, as mentioned, in para-5 of the written statement in fourth line of the written statement is required to be amended.
The Counsel added that the trial court has passed the order without application of mind and the same is required to be set aside to meet the ends of justice. The Court held that the amendment as sought for was required to be allowed for the simple reason that it was in the interest of justice and was only for correction of typographical mistake.
The Bench said, “If the amendment is allowed, respondents-plaintiffs will not suffer any loss or prejudice and the same cannot be said to be in any way hampering the dispensation of justice. The view taken by the trial court is that the amendment cannot be allowed, as it was made after eight years and the same is not required to be allowed.
“As the amendment was necessitated, which has been clear from the pleadings of the parties that their case from the very beginning was that the landlord of the defendant has become owner by way of adverse possession, as he was in adverse possession of the suit land since 1957 continuously without any interruption and after his title in ownership, the land was given to the present defendant on tenancy.
“The possession of the defendant, as a tenant from such a long time and after coming into operation of the HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, the present proceedings cannot be just closed for the simple reason on account of the delay, in moving the application,” observed the Court.
“In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the trial court is not rightly taken the view and so, the application for amendment is required to be allowed. Accordingly, the amendment as sought for, is required to be allowed. However, the trial court is directed to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Petitioner to appear before the trial court on November 9, 2021, either in person or through his Advocates,” the order read.