Tulsi Ram and Nirmala Devi vs Mandu

Dev Darshan, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.09.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Jawali allowing the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff herein praying for amendment of the plaint. In the application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC, the respondent had contended that there was a typographical mistake where the date of delivery of possession has been mentioned as "11.6.05" instead of "11.6.04", which mistake was required be corrected. In fact, according to the respondent it is this date on which the possession was delivered to the respondent/plaintiff. have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as also learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 1.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the application was moved at the stage of arguments and in this situation no amendment could have been allowed as the law does not permit amendment at this stage. There is no dispute with this proposition of law as it is by now well settled. However, what I find from the record is that it is not an amendment asking for introduction of new fact situation requiring extensive evidence as urged by the petitioners herein but only a correction of typographical mistake which is otherwise borne out from the record and the documents. What is effect of those documents, is to be considered by the learned trial Court at the time of the arguments on the suit. There is no merit in this petition and accordingly dismissed. No order as to the costs All pending applications stand disposed of.