IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 205 of 2010 Date of Decision: 8.9.2010. Vikas ..Petitioner. Versus. Jagdish Kumar and others ..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? . No For the Petitioner (s): Mr.Kapil Dev Sood, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): None for the respondents. Deepak Gupta, J (oral) This petition is directed against the order dated 31.5.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kullu, whereby he has rejected the application filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. The only amendment sought by the plaintiff was that the words “December, 2006” be replaced by the words “December, 2007”. According to the plaintiff, this was a typographical error which went unnoticed and instead of writing the year 2007 it was wrongly typed as 2006. It appears that the respondents are not interested in contesting this petition and despite service they have not appeared before this Court. The learned trial Court 2 rejected the application only on the ground that it was not mentioned in the application as to why despite due diligence he could not prefer amendment before the commencement of the trial. To say the least, the trial Court has taken a very hyper-technical view of the matter. A typographical mistake may not come to the notice at the earliest stage and I find that though issues have been framed in this case, evidence of the parties is still to be recorded. It was not as if the amendment has been sought with a view to delay the trial. In these circumstances, the petition is allowed, the order of the learned trial Court dated 31.5.2010 is set-aside and the amendment as prayed for by the plaintiff is allowed. The amended plaint which is on the file of learned trial Court is ordered to be taken on record. No costs. September 8, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ), J. PV