Clerical/Procedural Mistake In Verification Of Pleadings Can Be Rectified Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has observed that a clerical/procedural mistake that has occurred in the verification of pleadings can be rectified by moving the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC by the plaintiff.

The Bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal observed that the very purpose of Rule 17 in Order VI CPC is to give liberty to a party in a suit to amend his pleading at any stage in such manner and on such terms as may be just.

It may be noted that Order VI Rule 17 deals with the Amendment of Pleadings and it provides that the Court has the power, at any stage of the proceedings, to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.

However, this provision further provides that no such application shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

The case before the Court

M/S Rohit Surfactants Private Limited (plaintiff) moved the court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) against a 2012 judgment and order passed by Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the verification clause.

Essentially, a suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants-respondents seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their shopkeepers, agents, dealers, stockists, etc, from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, or soliciting business, advertising, or displaying directly or indirectly, dealing in using the Trade Mark GHARI.

However, the 18th page of the plaint got mutilated and it was replaced, and by sheer mistake, April 5, 2010, was typed as the date of verification, even though the plaint was ready on March 30, 2010, and the affidavit of the plaint was sworn on March 30, 2010, itself.

According to the plaintiff-revisionist, as soon as the mistake was discovered, an application for rectification thereof was moved and on Feb 8, 2011, the application was allowed and the amendment was duly incorporated in the plaint. However, the defendants objected to it and moved an application praying for the recall of the order.

The said application was allowed and the Court rejected the application of the plaintiff for rectification, hence the plaintiff moved the instant revision. 

Court's observations 

At the outset, the Court took into account the provision in question (Order VI Rule 17) and observed that this provision gives the liberty to the parties to the pleading to move an application for amendment at any stage. The Court also underscored that Rules 14 and 15 of Order VI do not put any embargo that any mistake occurring in the verification of a pleading cannot be cured subsequently.

Regarding the mistake in the case, the Court noted that it was not a case of intentional or deliberate mistake of the plaintiff, but a genuine and unintentional act that on the discovery, was tried to be rectified within a few months of the institution of the suit.

"The very purpose of Rule 17 in Order VI CPC is to give liberty to a party in a suit to amend his pleading at any stage in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The rules of procedures are intended to be handmaid to the administration of justice and such amendment cannot be refused because of some mistakes, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of rules of procedures," the Court remarked as it noted that the defect in verification is curable and the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is maintainable.

Consequently, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court set aside the order of the Court below rejecting the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC as being unsustainable in the eye of law.

Case title - M/S Rohit Surfactants Private Limited v. M/S Kanodia Salt Company Ltd.And Another [CIVIL REVISION No. - 448 of 2012]

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 212

Click Here To Read/Download Order