RECTIFICATION OF INSTRUMENT CANNOT BE SOUGHT BY WAY OF AMENDMENT UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17
In the High court of Karnataka by Justice K.Bhakthavatsala, in the case of Fakkirawwa vs Ashok Decided on 18 July, 2014, WRIT PETITION NO.76686 & 76687/2013
Chapter-III of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals with regard to rectification of instruments in the event of fraud or mutual mistake of the parties mentioned therein. As per sub-Section (2) of Section 26, if, in any suit in which a contract or other instrument is sought to be rectified under sub-section (1), the court finds that the instrument, through fraud or mistake, does not express the real intention of the parties, the court may, in its discretion, direct rectification of the instrument so as to express that intention. Further, sub-Section (3) of Section 26 says that a contract in writing may first be rectified, and then if the party claiming rectification has so prayed in his pleading and the court thinks fit, may be specifically enforced. ………………… The above-said provision does not permit the plaintiff, who has filed a Suit for specific performance of agreement to seek direction to the defendants to amend the Sy. No.63/A/2 instead of Sy. No.63/2A in the agreement of sale. It is pertinent to mention that if the case of the plaintiff is that there is mistake in mentioning correct survey number in the agreement of sale, it is open to the plaintiff to plead the same in the plaint or seek amendment of the plaint for such a relief in the suit by urging the grounds, but the above-said provision does not give any such right to the plaintiff to seek rectification of the instrument viz., the agreement of sale by filing an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC.