IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.52 of 2008 Date of decision: 22.05.2008. Smt. Piar Kaur and others …..Petitioners -Versus- Ms.Rano Devi and others ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioners: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For respondents: Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Advocate Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This petition is directed against the order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Indora dated 16.1.2008 whereby he has rejected the application for amendment of the plaint filed under Order 6 rule 17 CPC. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of the suit land comprised in old khasra No.25/4/2, Khatauni No.64 min, Khata No.26 min, Hadbast No.151 vide jamabandi of the year 1970-71. While giving the description of the property to the new khata Number the property was described as new khata No.15, khatauni No.35, khasra No.422. This description was only given in the heading of the plaint and in the body of the plaint there was no description of the property. This suit was being contested and in the meantime the plaintiffs filed an application that in the heading of the plaint the description of the land was not proper and wanted to amend the head note in respect of the description of the land giving the new khasra numbers in the following terms: “In the head note of the plaint after words khata Nos.15-16-89, Khatauni No.35-36-149, khasra No.422, 421, 419/1, plots -03 land measuring 0-21-42 HM to the extent of its share 250/2142 measuring 2 0-02-50 HM situated in tikka and mauza-Milwan, Tehsil-Indora, Distt.-Kangra (HP).” In para 4 of the plaint the plaintiffs had given description of the cause of action but no specific date or year was mentioned though the other details with regard to the cause of action were given and the plaintiffs only wanted to insert the words “in the year 2006”. The learned trial Court rejected this application on the ground that the application has been filed after the commencement of the trial and to fill up the lacuna of the case. No doubt, under the amended CPC the amendment cannot be allowed after the commencement of the trial unless the party shows that despite due diligence it could not have incorporated the facts necessitating the amendment at the time of filing the pleadings. However, in the present case all that is sought to be corrected is the mis-description of the suit land in so far as it relates to new khasra numbers after settlement. It is clear that old khasra No.25/4/2 was divided into khasra Nos.421, 419 and 422. This is apparent from the settlement record attached with the plaint. This amendment is basically clarificatory in nature. The mistake in description of the property appears to be by oversight since the description of the land as per the old khasra number was already there and the area of the land has also not changed. The learned trial Court, in my view, has taken a hyper technical view in rejecting the application. The Rules of procedure are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart the same. The amendment will enable the Court to properly decide the suit since the suit land shall be identified correctly and properly. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Court should be liberal while considering applications for amendment and should allow those amendments which are necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties. There was no lack of diligence on the part of the petitioners since all the documents even those giving the new khasra numbers 3 were attached with the plaint. Mistake occurred while drafting the plaint by the counsel and the party should not suffer for the same. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that the order of the trial court is wholly incorrect. The same is accordingly set-aside. The application for amendment is allowed. The amended plaint is ordered to be taken on record. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 26th June, 2008. The Registry is directed to send back the record of the case immediately. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. May 22, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge