C.R. No. 226 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 226 of 2011 Date of Decision: January 14, 2011 Ravinder …..Petitioner Vs. Dial Masih …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide impugned order dated November 26, 2010, an application for amendment of the plaint filed by the plaintiff- respondent stand allowed, permitting him to rectify a typographical error in the amount of interest claimed. Instead of interest of ` 18000/-, plaintiff- respondent has been permitted to make the necessary correction as ` 1.80 lacs. Counsel for the defendant- petitioner has vehemently contended that as per the pronote and receipt dated August 24, 2006, there C.R. No. 226 of 2011 [2] is no rate of interest mentioned and that the amendment is barred by limitation. After hearing counsel for the defendant- petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the permission to rectify a typographical error will not tentamount to holding that the interest demanded has been allowed by the trial Court. The entitlement to recover interest at a particular rate has to be determined on the basis of the material produced by the plaintiff- respondent. So far as plea of amendment being barred by limitation is concerned, I do not find any force in the said contention of counsel for the petitioner as the amendment of typographical error will relate back to the date when the suit was filed. Besides this, the amendment seems to have been permitted at initial stage before the commencement of the trial. No ground is made out for interference. Dismissed. January 14, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE