1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 97/2011 (Lavkesh @ Lokesh Amleprasad @ Ambeshprasad Pande & another VERSUS Pramod Lalaji Bante & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Miss M.D. Bhambhwani, counsel for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 12 , 2011 . Heard. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the trial Court on 13.09.2010 allowing the amendment application filed by the respondent-plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for specific performance of contract. In the plaint pleadings, the plaintiffs had pleaded that they had paid an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- to the defendants as earnest amount. The plaintiffs moved an amendment application on 30.07.2010 seeking to correct a typing mistake in paragraph 9 of the plaint so as to substitute the figures ‘Rs.1,70,000/-’ by Rs.1,60,000/-’ as it was the case of the plaintiffs that the said figure appeared in paragraph 9 of the plaint in view of a typographical error. The defendants denied the prayer made in the amendment application and stated that the petitioners had previously moved an amendment application and the same was allowed and, hence, there was no reason for the Court to grant the prayer made in the amendment application. It was also the case of the defendant that after the plaintiffs had tendered his 2 evidence on affidavit and after the trial had begun, there was no question of allowing the amendment application, as the plaintiffs had not stated any cogent reasons as to why, the amendment application, was not filed before the commencement of the trial. The learned counsel for the petitioners made the two fold submission as was made in the reply to the amendment application. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on an unreported judgment of this Court dated 14.07.2010 in Writ Petition No.1945/2010 (Yogendra Raojibhai Patel & another Versus M/s Metal Windows & others) to substantiate her submission. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the pleadings as well as the impugned order dated 13.09.2010, it appears that the trial Court did not commit any error in allowing the amendment application. The application for amendment clearly stated that due to typing mistake in stead of the figure ‘Rs.1,60,000/-’, a figure of ‘Rs.1,70,000/-’ was mentioned in paragraph 9 of the plaint. The plaintiffs’ counsel had argued before the trial Court that the proposed amendment was nothing but a rectification in the figure of the earnest amount, which was formal in nature and did not change the nature of the suit. On considering the controversy involved in the suit, it appears that the trial Court did not commit any error in permitting the petitioner to substitute the figure ‘Rs.1,60,000/-’ in stead of the figure ‘Rs.1,70,000/-’, which was wrongly mentioned in paragraph 9 of the plaint due to the typographical error. The Court held and rightly so that the proposed amendment did not change the nature of the suit and it was necessary to permit the 3 plaintiff to correct a mistake, which was bona fide. Though there is no jurisdictional error in the order passed by the trial Court, it is worthwhile to mention that the plaintiff ought to have been more diligent in prosecuting the matter and should have noticed the typographical mistake when the previous application for amendment was filed. Be that as it may, since the order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, the same cannot be interfered with, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The unreported judgment dated 14.07.2010 in Writ Petition No.1945/2010 cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. In the result, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE