Clarificatory amendments correcting typographical errors to resolve internal inconsistencies in pleadings are permissible under Order 6 Rule 17.

The petitioner (plaintiff) filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding property in Village Umariya, District Guna

The plaintiff asserted ownership and settled possession based on a 1990 deed of dissolution

During the suit, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC to amend paragraph 15 of the plaint, claiming that the word "dispossessed" was inadvertently used instead of "attempting to dispossess"

The Trial Court rejected the application, holding that the plaintiff could not be permitted to resile from a judicial admission regarding the loss of possession

The petitioner challenged this order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

1. Whether the Trial Court committed a jurisdictional error by treating a typographical inconsistency as a binding judicial admission

2. Whether an amendment that is clarificatory and intended to resolve inconsistencies in pleadings should be allowed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC

The Court applied Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which allows for the amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings to determine the real questions in controversy

It further applied the principle that amendments which are clarificatory in nature and intended to rectify clerical or typographical errors—rather than withdrawing categorical admissions—should be permitted to ensure fair adjudication

The Court also exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to correct the lower court's jurisdictional error

The High Court found that the Trial Court failed to consider the plaint in its entirety

It noted that in multiple paragraphs (3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13), the plaintiff had consistently pleaded being in possession of the property

The Court reasoned that the error in paragraph 15 was purely typographical because the plaintiff sought the relief of a permanent injunction; had the plaintiff actually been out of possession, the appropriate legal relief would have been the recovery of possession

Therefore, the amendment did not constitute the withdrawal of a "categorical admission" but was a necessary correction to align the pleadings with the relief sought and the rest of the plaint

It held that the Trial Court erred in treating the typographical mistake as a final admission

The application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to amend the plaint within the time stipulated by the Trial Court

The Trial Court was further directed to allow the defendants to file a consequential amendment to their written statement and proceed with the matter in accordance with the law

No order as to costs was made