IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4577 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: February 2, 2011. Manjit Kaur and another ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus M/s Ram Rattan Hans Raj and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. P.K.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate for respondents No.7 to 10. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 10.12.2010, Annexure P3 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Jagraon vide which application, Annexure P1, filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs for amendment of plaint was dismissed. CR No.4577 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, present petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of money on the basis of Hundies dated 27.12.1994 and 06.03.1994. Suit was contested by respondents-defendants. Issues were framed. Evidence of both the parties was recorded. The case was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments when the present application for amendment was filed. Petitioners-plaintiffs sought to amend the date of one of the Hundies as 27.12.1994 instead of 27.02.1994 on the plea that the mistake is a typographical. The application has been opposed by learned counsel for the respondents on the ground that petitioners-plaintiffs have committed gross negligence in pursuing the case and that earlier as well plaint was amended and even at that time this mistake was not got corrected. Hence, it is contended that respondents-defendants were unnecessarily harassed. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that amendment in Order 6, Rule 17 CPC, which came into force w.e.f. 01.07.2002 is not applicable to the present case as the present suit was instituted on 3rd January, 2001. On the point, he has placed reliance upon 2007(1) Civil Court Cases 704, State Bank of Hyderabad v. Town Muncipal Council. So far as this plea is concerned, there is no dispute. Mistake also seems to be typographical one. The Hundi in dispute is already on record, which is dated 27.12.1994. However, there is force in the argument of 2 CR No.4577 of 2010 respondents-defendants that petitioners-plaintiffs were grossly negligent in not getting the mistake corrected even at the time of filing of application for amendment of plaint previously and that hence, respondents-defendants have been unnecessarily harassed. So far as this plea is concerned, respondents- defendants can be adequately compensated with costs. Hence, in view of these facts, the present revision petition is accepted. The impugned order dated 10.12.2010 passed by learned trial Court is, hereby, set aside. As a consequence thereof the application filed by the petitioners- plaintiffs for amendment of plaint is allowed. However, petitioners-plaintiffs are burdened with costs of `10,000/-. It is made clear that payment of costs shall be a condition precedent. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) February 2, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 3