IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 300 of 2006 (M/S) Imrat & others … Petitioners Versus Kalu & others … Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Amish Tiwari, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The Court finds that the trial court committed an error in not allowing the amendment application of the plaintiffs. It transpires that the plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction. In paragraph 1, it was stated that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of Khasra No. 48, but in the schedule, the property mentioned related to Khasra No. 155. After a lapse of six years, the plaintiffs filed an application for amendment praying that Khasra No. 48 had wrongly been mentioned in paragraph 1 of the plaint and the same should be rectified as Khasra No. 155, since he is the owner of Khasra No. 155. In support of his amendment application, the revenue records were placed to show that the plaintiffs were the owner of Khasra No. 155. This application was rejected by the trial court on the ground that plaintiffs had belatedly moved the application and such delay cannot be condoned. The trial court was also of the opinion that the plaintiffs were trying to linger on the proceedings. The plaintiffs, being aggrieved, have filed the present writ petition. 2 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that admittedly the plaintiffs have mentioned Khasra No. 155 in the schedule to the plaint, but by some typographical error, Khasra No. 48 was recorded in paragraph 1 of the plaint. When the typographical error was discovered, the said application was filed. 4. In the opinion of the Court, such amendment to correct the typographical error, does not change the nature of the suit and should have been allowed in the interest of justice, rather than rejecting it on technicalities on the ground of delay. 5. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The amendment application is also allowed on payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/-, which shall be deposited before the trial court within four weeks from today. The amount so deposited can be withdrawn by the defendants without furnishing any security. 6. Certified copy of this order shall be sent by the Registry to the court below within two weeks from today for necessary information and action. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 28.12.2011 Aswal