( 1 ) wp7845.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7845 OF 2010 Suryakant Vishwanath Autade .. Petitioner Versus Ramdhan Ambadas Thombre & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Vivek V. Bhavthankar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 7. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR,J. DATED : 24.01.2011 P.C. :- 1. By consent, the petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner is original plaintiff and challenges order dated 08.07.2010 rendered by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, (J.D.), Kaij, in the suit bearing Regular Civil Suit ( 2 ) wp7845.10 No. 337 of 2001. By the impugned order, the amendment application (Exh.88) moved by the petitioner came to be dismissed. 4. It is not necessary to elaborately set out the facts narrated by the petitioner at the relevant controversy regarding the loan transaction on the basis of which the suit for recovery of money is filed by him. It appears that, before filing of the suit, the petitioner had filed criminal proceedings for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He inter-alia made averment that the loan transaction took place on 25.11.1988. It appears that he had issued demand notice wherein the same kind of averment was made. He filed application for amendment of the pleading alleging that there was mistake in showing the date of transaction as 25.11.1998 though in-fact the date is 25.10.1998. He also incidentally sought addition of certain statements in paragraph 1(a) after line No. 2 of the plaint. 5. Mr. Bhavthankar submits that he does not wish to press the amendment stated in the application to the extent ( 3 ) wp7845.10 of addition of paragraph 1(a). He submits that it would suffice if the petitioner is allowed to change the date of transaction being 25.10.1998 instead of 25.11.1998 in order to clear the fact situation. 6. The mere change in the date of the transaction, which is attributed by the petitioner to a mistake, by itself cannot amount to change in the nature of the suit. It also does not come within the ambit of Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. in as much as change of such a date is not change in the pleadings, but it is change which is sought for correction of mistake. The mistakes can be rectified under Section 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court has inherent power to rectify such mistake if it is so necessary for the purpose of effective and final adjudication and in the interest of justice. Considering this aspect, the rejection of the application on technical ground is improper and the impugned order deserves interference. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside subject to condition that the ( 4 ) wp7845.10 petitioner would pay costs of Rs. 1500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred Only) to the respondents in the Trial Court prior to correction of date as sought by him in para 1 (b) of the amendment application and on further condition that no other change in the pleadings would be permissible except change of the date of transaction, which is 25.10.1998 instead of 25.11.1998. The amendment to be carried out within a period of three weeks and the costs shall be paid prior to such amendment. If the costs are not paid within three weeks, the petition be deemed as dismissed. 8. The petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] snk/2010/JAN11/wp7845.10