WPMS No. 1059 of 2003 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Rajendra Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is the plaintiff and had filed a suit for damages against the Power Grid Corporation. The plaint allegation in a nutshell is, that the Power Grid Corporation had damaged his grove while laying the over head transmission line and, consequently, prayed for damages to the tune of approximately Rs.6 lacs and odd. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of his plaint in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. for amending various paragraphs of the plaint, namely, for addition of the quantum, for addition of certain trees that were damaged during the laying of the over head transmission line and to add a fact that the land was irrigated instead of being un-irrigated. This application was rejected by the trial court on the ground that the plaintiff is trying to inflate the amount of damages and that it is an afterthought and further the amendment was not a typographical error as alleged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the defendant contended that the present amendment application was moved at the stage of evidence and that it was alleged by the plaintiff that there was a typographical error which apparently it was not and that it was a clear case of an afterthought of demanding more compensation from the defendant. Such application was not bonafide and was liable to be rejected. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff should be permitted to take all such grounds possible so that effective adjudication is done once and for all and justice is done between the parties. The fact that the amendment sought was an afterthought or was a typographical error is irrelevant to the issue. What is relevant is that the petitioner has claimed a relief for damages / compensation from the defendant and by the amendment, he is seeking to enhance the damages / compensation. Such amendment does not change the nature of the suit nor in any way affect the pleadings of the parties. No new stand is being taken and, consequently, such amendment even if it was an afterthought should be allowed. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The amendment application is allowed on payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- which the plaintiff will deposit before the court below within four weeks from today. The amount so deposited can be withdrawn by the defendant without furnishing any security. Certified copy of the order shall be sent by the Registry to the court below within ten days from today for necessary information and action. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 23.12.2011 Shiv