HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.169 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner herein is the fourth defendant in the Suit. Respondents 1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.194 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy. They filed I.A.No.1078 of 2007 to amend the plaint by correcting the survey number in the prayer as 402/A instead of 403/A. It is their case that, while in the body of the plaint the survey number has been correctly referred to as 402/A, due to oversight and by typographical mistake, the survey number was reflected in the prayer portion as 403/A necessitating amendment of the prayer in the plaint. The petitioner - fourth defendant opposed the said application, relying on the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, contending that the respondents - plaintiffs had not shown due diligence in having the plaint amended prior to commencement of trial. The Court below rejected this contention holding that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC was directory and not mandatory; amendment could be permitted at any stage; and, since the amendment as sought was to correct a mistake, which was evidently on account of oversight, the application should be allowed. Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court, in Ajendraprasadji N. Pande v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N.1, in support of his contention that the requirement of establishing due diligence under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC is mandatory; compliance of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC was essential; and the Court below had clearly erred in holding that it was directory. Ordinarily, this Court could have set aside the order under revision, and remanded the matter back to the Court below to ascertain whether or not the due diligence test, under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, is satisfied. The fact, however, remains that the Suit is of the year 2005, and the wrong survey number mentioned in the prayer of the plaint is obviously a typographical error in as much as the correct survey number is reflected in the entire body of the plaint. Ends of justice would, therefore, be met if the order of the Court below is affirmed on condition that respondents 1 and 2 shall deposit Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) to the credit of the Suit within two weeks from today. On such deposit, the Court below shall permit the petitioner - fourth defendant to withdraw the said amount. The Court below shall permit the plaint to be amended and, thereafter, proceed to adjudicate the suit in accordance with law. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:01-07-2010 usd 1 2007(2) ALD 93(SC)