1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1361 OF 2008 Tukaram Dnyanu Sarafdar & Anr. .. Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.A.Pawar for petitioner Mr.Sameer Patil, A.G.P. for State Mr.Anilkumar Patil for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 24th March 2008 P.C. . Petitioners are the original plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No.135 of 2001. 2. An application for amendment (Exh.65) was filed by the plaintiffs in the suit. They pointed out that the suit property has been described with boundaries. But due to inadvertence, there is a wrong number which is 2 mentioned. The petitioners, therefore, desire to give an appropriate clarification with regard to the suit property. The errors were typographical, according to them and through inadvertence. The cause of action nor the relief was sought to be changed. There was no prejudice that was to be caused to the other side. This application was filed on 5th February 2008. The property number had to be substituted by the correct number, according to the plaintiffs. This application was opposed and it was contended that the matter is at the stage of final argument, recording of evidence is complete and no satisfactory reason is given for the delay in filing the amendment application. 3. Learned Judge has rejected the application. It is unfortunate that the learned Judge has lost sight of the settled principles that merits of the amended pleas are not to be gone into in details. He has disbelieved the 3 plaintiffs by holding that the numbers are not inadvertently mentioned and that contention is misconceived and/or misplaced. In para 7 of the impugned order the learned Judge has disbelieved the version on delay as well. However, at the same time, the learned Judge has observed that the plaintiffs have disclosed the property. The description of the same is given. As to how putting any additional number or inserting or substituting the number of property mentioned would surprise the other side, is not clear to me at all. There was no question of the defendants being prejudiced much less helpless in the matter. 4. The Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli has completely misdirected himself while considering the subject application. There was no occasion for him to have gone into the merits of the case in such details. Once he is of the opinion that the description of the property in 4 para 1 of the plaint is neither incomplete nor confusing and some erroneous house number is mentioned that is not of any significance, then, one fails to understand as to how he could reach a conclusion that the application is to be rejected. 5. Either in the light of the clarification given by him, the application was unnecessary or that the application causes no prejudice and, therefore, deserves to be allowed but with cost, as there was delay should have been the conclusion. Looked at from any angle, the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is accordingly quashed and set aside. Application Exh.65 is allowed subject to the petitioners paying cost quantified at Rs.1000/-. Amendments to be carried out within two weeks. Amended written statement, if any, to be filed within two weeks thereafter. 5 6. Petition disposed of. No costs. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)