CRP 345/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I.A. ANSARI Heard Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. By filing this application, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is defendant in Title Suit No. 26 of 2009, has put to challenge the order, dated 03-05-2011, passed, in Title Suit No. 26/2009, by the learned C ivil Judge, Jorhat, whereby the learned Court below has allowed the amendment of the plaint, which had been sought for by the plaintiff-opposite party by making a petition under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC. For the sake of clarity, the application, seeking amendments, is reproduced belo w: 2. That in the above suit, plaintiff mentioned happening of incidents with date , month and year after death of original pattadar Samsuz Zaman on 17-05-08 by fi ling original death certificate in the suit in Para 3, 11, 15 and 24 of the plai nt. 3. That all the said incidents happened after death of original pattadar and as such the dates of happening must after 17-05-08. 4. That due to typing mistake, the date of filing Mutation Case No. 858/07-08 wa s wrongly mentioned as 23-07-07 in Para 8 of the plaint which need to be amended as 23-07-2008 in place of 23-7-07. That in para 11 of the plaint, the meeting of plaintiff with defendant is wrongl y typed as on 2.7.07 which is to be amended as 24.7.08 in place of 2.7.07. That in Para 15 of the plaint, the date of Defendant’s demolition of a part of p laintiff’s residential building is wrongly typed as 15.7.07 which need to be ame nded as 25.7.08. That in Para 24, the date mentioned as 15.7.07 is accordingly need to be amended as 25.7.08 which is same as amendment of Para 15 of the Plaint. That all the required amendments are purely typing mistake and through oversight which is detected today while case is fixed for admission and discovery and goi ng through the records. That said amendment never changes the basic character of the suit and defendant is no why prejudice. That if the amendment is not allowed, the plaintiff may loose their justice and deprive from getting their disputed decided for ever. The basic thrust of the arguments, advanced, on behalf of the petitioner for sus taining this petition, is that allowing the amendments would amount to make the plaintiff change the cause(s) of action in the suit and that too, on the basis o f the facts, which have been disclosed in the written statement. It needs to be bear in mind that ’cause of action’ is not really the date of inc ident only. ’Cause of action’ is a bundle of facts, which give rise to a claim f or relief. Mere change in the date(s) would not amount to change in the ’cause o f action’, because ’cause of action’ would include not merely the dates, but the events on the given date. If the petition for amendment is carefully examined, it becomes clear that the p laintiff has sought for change the various dates, which have been mentioned in t he plaint. The dates, which have been mentioned by the plaintiff in his applicat ion seeking amendments, may or may not be correct; but the correctness of the da tes is a question to be determined at the trial and not while deciding the quest ion as to whether the amendments shall or shall not be allowed. In the present case for merely because of the fact that a date, mentioned in the plaint, has been allowed to be changed, it would not amount to changing the ’ca use of action’ itself nor would it amount to change in the nature and character of the suit. In such circumstances, there is no infirmity in passing of the impu gned order, dated 03-05-2011, allowing the amendments, which the plaintiff-oppos ite party had sought for. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court does not f ind the impugned order without jurisdiction or perverse in any manner, which can be amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitu tion of India. This revision is, therefore, not admitted and shall accordingly stand dismissed. No order as to costs.