CRP 318/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P.K.MUSAHARY Heard Mr. R.Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff and M s. T. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties/defendants. This application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 6.8.08 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Golagh at, in Money Suit No. 9/2006 rejecting the petition for amendment of the plaint. The aforesaid Money Suit was filed on 28.8.06 for recovery of mo ney amounting to Rs. 86,000/- with interest from the present opposite parties/de fendants. The defendants in the aforesaid Money Suit appeared and filed written statement as well as objection. In the amendment petition, the petitioner/plaintiff has stated t hat in the first line of the Para-2 of the plaint, the word and figures March 3 1, 2003 has been wrongly inserted in place of the word and figures August 31, 2003 , arising from the misreading of the figures 8 as 3 , appearing in the ndorsement of part payment of the sum of Rs. 14,000/- made by the defendant on A ugust 31, 2003. Mr. R. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff subm its that the date 31.3.03 should be read as 31.8.03, inasmuch as, it was a bonaf ide mistake on the part of the petitioner/plaintiff and according to him, the su it is not barred by limitation. He also refers to the provision under Order VII , R 1 of the CPC, wherein it is provided that no application for alteration or a mendment in the pleadings can be allowed in special circumstances if the court c omes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Ms. T. Goswami, learned counsel for the opposite parties/defenda nts, on the other hand, submits that the benefit under the aforesaid provision o f CPC cannot be made available to the petitioner/plaintiff, inasmuch as, as per the records, particularly, the promissory note executed and part payment was mad e on 31.3.03 and the limitation would run from 31.3.03. She also refers to the deposition of the petitioner/plaintiff before the trial court wherein he made st atement that on 31.3.03, a sum of Rs. 14,000/- was paid by the opposite parties/ defendants as part payment to the loan amount of Rs. 1,00,000.00 (Rs. One lakh). She has produced a certified copy of the aforesaid deposition. From this mater ial it has become evidently clear that the part payment of the loan amount was m ade on 31.3.03 and the limitation should run from the aforesaid date. If the per iod of 3 months is counted from 31.3.03, suit should have been filed on or befor e 30.3.06. It appears that the petitioner/plaintiff was well aware about th e factual position that the part payment was made on 31.3.03 and to establish th e case that the suit was filed within the period of limitation, the application under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC was filed subsequently. In that view of the matter, I am not satisfied that the aforesai d application for amendment of plaint has been filed bonafide for correction of an inadvertent mistake in inserting relevant date in the plaint. In my considere d view, the learned Munsiff No.1 on consideration of the relevant facts and circ umstances has rightly rejected the prayer for amendment of the plaint which need s no interference. This application has no merit and accordingly it stands dismi ssed. No costs.