CWP-11730/2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11730/2009 Jagdish Das Vs Hari Bhajan Das & anr. DATE OF ORDER : 11/05/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI *** Mr. Shyam Bihari Sharma, for petitioner. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 18/08/2009 (Anx.7) pased by the learned Judge, Agriculture Debts Relief Court, Malpura, Tonk (Non- petitioner No.2) whereby the application filed by the non-petitioner No.1 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, seeking amendment in the plaint was allowed on payment of costs of Rs. 2000/-. Initially application was filed by the non- petitioner No.1 under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Debts Relief Act, 1957 which was decided on 30/01/2006 against which revision petition was filed which was decide on 26/08/2007 and the matter was remanded back to the learned Prescribed Authority to frame issues after examining the question arises for consideration and decide the matter in accordance with law. At this stage, application was filed by the non-petitioner No.1 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment and basically corrections of typographical errors committed while filing the CWP-11730/2009 2 application under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Debts Relief Act, 1957. The learned Prescribed authority, taking note of the contents of the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, observed that what has been prayed indisputably were typographical errors and either the name being wrongly shown or the figure being wrongly mentioned in the application and considering that what has been prayed for by the non-petitioner No.1 seeking amendment in his application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is not going to change the nature of the dispute raised for adjudication, and in such circumstances, allowed the application on payment of the costs of Rs. 2000/- Counsel submits that under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC ordinarily the permission for amendment could not have been allowed after the trial has commenced and in this case, even the matter travelled upto the revisional court as well and it is pending after being remanded back to the prescribed authority and at this stage, the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was not maintainable being not within the scope of the provisions referred to supra. In the opinion of this Court, the submissions made is without substance for the reason that Order 6 Rule 17 CPC does not debar from seeking amendment and it has been left for CWP-11730/2009 3 the Court to examine as to whether the amendment which is being sought for could not have been made in spite of the due diligence before the commencement of the trial. In the instant case, the amendment, which has been sought for by the non-petitioner No.1, is nothing but clerical errors which came to his notice after the matter was remanded back to the prescribed authority and is in no manner going to change the substance or nature of the application and in such circumstances, the authority exercised powers to accept the application on payment of costs of Rs.2000/- under order impugned. This Court does not find any manifest error being committed by the Authority in passing the order impugned which may call for interference. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Raghu/p.3/ 11730CW2009-final.doc