1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8684 OF 2007 Rajendra Motichand Gandhi ..Petitioner V/s. Maruti Pandurang Pingale ..Respondent Mr.T.D.Deshmukh, advocate, for petitioner Mr.N.V.Sharma , advocate, for respondent CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 12TH MARCH, 2008 P.C. . Amendment application of the petitioner/original plaintiff has been rejected and that is why the Writ Petition. 2. Repeatedly, the Supreme Court has held that amendments have to be liberally granted. There are several decisions of this Court in revisional and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, on identical lines. Yet, the petitioner's request to amend the plaint so as to incorporate a figure, which on account of typographical error, is not appearing correctly has 2 been rejected. Amendment application is at page Nos.36 and 37. The amendment application itself states that the petitioner does not want to claim any relief nor does he desire to alter the structure or nature of the claim. That his request is that instead of the figure 36,900/- a figure of 96,600/- be allowed to be inserted and other consequential changes be permitted to be made. These figures are appearing in the affidavit filed by the plaintiff and therefore, there will be no prejudice to the other side. 3. This application was opposed by the respondent/original defendant and the learned Judge has observed that typographical error has been brought to the notice of the plaintiff in the Written Statement. Thereafter, plaintiff has filed his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief but till then he has not moved for the amendment of the plaint. The learned Judge says that the amended pleas are inconsistent with the original claim and therefore, the amendment will be disallowed. However, nothing has been observed in the impugned 3 Judgment as to show how there is inconsistency in the claim. All that is that there may be some inconsistency in the figures and the claim of the plaintiff. Merely because Rs.36,900/- is allowed to be inserted instead of Rs.96,600/- does not mean that the pleas are inconsistent. The learned Judge has completely lost sight of the liberal principles and has failed to apply his mind to the amendment application. 4. The impugned order is therefore ex-facie unsustainable and is quashed and set aside. Plaint is allowed to be amended in terms of the amendment application within a period of two weeks from today. However, the original plaintiff to pay costs quantified at Rs.1000/- to the defendant in the Trial Court. Additional Written Statement, if any, to be filed within a period of four weeks from today from the date of the amendment to be carried out. All pleas on merits are expressly kept open and alteration of the figure does not mean that the claim is awarded. 4 (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)