IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.572 of 2009 Date of decision : July 15, 2010 Yog Raj …Petitioner. Versus Piare Lal …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Umesh Kanwar, vice Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner, who is plaintiff in a suit instituted in the Court of Civil Judge, Ghumarwin, is aggrieved by the order dated 2nd September, 2009, Annexure P-4, by which his application for amendment of plaint to correct sub number of Khasra No.162, upon which encroachment is alleged to have been made, has been rejected. 2. Petitioner, initially, filed a suit for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendant- respondent from interfering in his land bearing Khasra No.162 or raising construction on any portion of it. During the pendency of that suit, he filed an application for amendment of the plaint, so as to raise the plea that after the institution of the suit, encroachment on a portion of Khasra No.162, to the extent of 3 biswas, has been made, by starting construction of Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… a house and that that portion was shown by min Khasra No.162/4. Relief of mandatory injunction was also sought to be added, in respect of said 3 biswas area. Amendment was allowed, vide order dated 10th September, 2008, Annexure P-1. 3. Thereafter, plaintiff examined one of his witnesses and then moved another application on 10th August, 2009, asking for another amendment in the plaint, so as to plead that the min number of 3 biswas area, on which construction of a house had been started by the defendant-respondent, is 162/1 and not 162/4 and that in the earlier amended plaint and the application for amendment of plaint, sub number had been wrongly recorded. It was stated that the petitioner came to know about the correct number only when Tatima was made available to him by the concerned revenue official. 4. Application for second amendment has been dismissed by the trial Court, on the ground that there was delay in seeking the amendment and there was also lack of diligence on the part of the petitioner. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Amendment, which was sought to be made, was only by way of rectification of a clerical/typographical error in the application for amendment and also in the amended plaint, which was filed after the earlier amendment had been allowed. In fact, it was only after the petitioner procured copy of Tatima, for producing in evidence, that he came to know that min number of the 3 biswas area, allegedly encroached …3… upon, had not been correctly mentioned in the earlier application for amendment, as also the amended plaint. Such kind of amendments cannot be rejected only on the ground of delay or lack of diligence. Other party can be compensated by awarding costs. 7. In view of the above stated position, present petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the amendment, as sought by the petitioner, is permitted to be carried out in the plaint, subject to payment of costs of Rs.1000/-. Petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of, as having become infructuous. July 15, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J