K. Kannan, J.@mdashThe revision is against an order allowing an application for amendment sought by the plaintiff in a suit for specific
performance on the ground that there were some typographical errors in the initial plaint and hence wanted to include in paragraph 9-A to the
existing paragraph 9. The existing paragraph refers to an agreement of sale executed on 9.5.2005, that the first defendant vendor did not act as per
the terms of the agreement and that there was a Panchayat held asking the first defendant to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff could aver in the
plaint as originally pleaded that he was at the Sub Registrar''s office at the relevant time but the vendor did not turn up. In the amended plaint
sought to be made by introduction of paragraph 9-A, there is a reference to the fact of exchange of notices through counsel between the plaintiff
and the first defendant and the plaintiff has also given a specific date when the plaintiff had actually turned up at the Sub Registrar''s office when the
defendant did not turn up. The amendment does not bring any change in cause of action nor does it introduce any fact which is such as to take the
defendant by surprise. It sets out (i) that there was an exchange of notices and ii) it gives a date of the event which was already set out in the plaint
that he waited at the Sub Registrar''s office when the first defendant did not appear.
2. These additions brought about is assailed in revision by the subsequent purchaser on a plea that these facts were surely known to the plaintiff at
the time when the suit was filed and that it was not merely a typographical error as sought to be contended by introducing wholly a new para.
Learned counsel would also refer me to the decision of the Supreme Court in J. Samuel and Others Vs. Gattu Mahesh and Others, as setting out a
law exactly similar to the facts that arise into the case. The Supreme Court was considering a case of amendment sought to incorporate a plea on
an averment that it was missed due to typographical mistake in the plaint. The plaintiff in that case was seen to be introducing a whole new case.
The omission had been on a vital plea in plaint referring to the essentials of what was to be stated u/s 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The court
found it to be a result of lack of due diligence which could not be recorded merely as typographical error. If at all, any congruity of the incidence
could be noted, it is a reference to typographical error. In this case, evidently it was not a typographical error. We are applying a language which is
foreign to us. If the plaintiff has stated that due to typographical error he had not referred to the exchange of notice, it should be seen that he was
referring to a issue which ought to have been stated previously. I do not think that there was any essential pleading which was omitted to be stated
or any addition or inclusion that brings about a situation that can harm the defendant. The revision is an unmerited attempt at the instance of the
subsequent purchaser and it deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.