Civil Revision No. 6385 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6385 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.09.2009 Smt. Shanti Devi and others ....Petitioners versus Vinay Verma ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Sudhir Paruthi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the respondent. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 8.10.2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala Cantt., vide which the application moved by the plaintiff/respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment of the plaint, stands allowed. By way of amendment, the plaintiff/respondent sought to delete the word “partly” in para No. 2 of the plaint, substitute words “by removing” in para 5 with the word “and removed”. The learned trial Court held, that the amendment sought was merely to correct the typographical error, and was not substantial. Furthermore no prejudice was likely to be caused to the petitioners, as no evidence was to be led in pursuance to the amendment. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends, that the amendment could not be allowed, as it amounts to withdrawing the admission made by the plaintiff/respondent. In support Civil Revision No. 6385 of 2008 (O&M) -2- of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gautam Sarup Vs. Leela Jetly and others, 2008(1) RCR 487 and the judgment of this Court in Sant Prakash Singh Vs. Nirmal Singh, 1998(2) Civil Court Cases 212, wherein this Court was pleased to lay down, that admission made cannot be allowed to be withdrawn unless it is explained as to how the admission made was incorrect. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The plaintiff/respondents are not withdrawing any admission, as alleged. The suit filed by the plaintiff/respondents is for possession of H. No. 7, Aggarsain Nagar, within Municipal limits of Saddar, Ambala Cantt., measuring 0-3 marlas. Thus, word “partly” in para No. 2 was nothing but typographical error. The second amendment sought is to correct the grammatical mistake. In absence of the said amendment word “by removing” also conveys the same meaning, as would be conveyed by the amendment. The learned trial Court, therefore, was right in holding, that by way of amendment only typographical error is being corrected, which is not likely to cause any prejudice to the petitioners, specially when no evidence was to be led by either of the parties, in view of the amendment. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge September 11, 2009 R.S.