1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4932/2004. Bhogiram. VERSUS C.J.(J.D.), Roopbas, Distt.Bharatpur and Others. 12.09.2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.P.K.Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajnish Gupta ] Mr.Shiv Lal Verma ] for the respondents. ***** Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 19.07.2004 (Annexure-6) by which the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment in the plaint regarding the date 22.10.1986 to be corrected as 22.12.1986 under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. and in the issue No.4 that date has been mentioned as 22.10.1986 relating to the compromise be amended as 22.12.1986 has been dismissed. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid error in the date is a clerical error which may be permitted to be amended and the parties have already filed the document (Exhibit-4) and the evidence by the parties have already been recorded, the plaintiff does not want to 2 lead any evidence and as such the question of delaying the trial of the suit on the part of the plaintiff does not arise, as mentioned by the learned trial court. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that on account of the correction in the plaint and the issue No.4, the complexion of the suit itself would change and the defendant would now require to lead evidence afresh. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the amendment which has been sought to be introduced to the pleadings and in the issue No.4 is clerical in nature and as has been submitted by the plaintiff in the application that by mistake the date 22.12.1986 has been typed as 22.10.1986. As a result of the aforesaid date 22.10.1986, having been typed in the plaint, the issue has also been framed keeping the date as 22.10.1986 which may also be corrected accordingly in the light of the amendment in the plaint. The amendment as sought for is the clerical mistake which deserves to be allowed. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has 3 fairly stated that the plaintiff-petitioner would not be leading any evidence in the suit as a result of the aforesaid amendment, the learned trial court is directed to proceed with the matter. In case the defendant wishes to lead any evidence as a result of the aforesaid amendment they are free to move an application before the learned trial court in this behalf which shall be dealt with and decided in accordance with law. Subject to the above, the writ petition as well as the stay application stand disposed of. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.