IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.616 of 2009 1. NOOR ISLAM @ MD. NOORUL ISLAM 2. Haji Saeed @ Md. Saeed, both sons of late Mehdi, R/O-Shahpur Baghone, Post Baghone, P.S. Tajpur Vaine, District-Samastipur. Versus 1. QAISAR ALI, Son of Zamirul Haque. 2. Qamrun Nisha, Wife of Md. Zamirul Haque, both resident of Shahpur Baghone, Post Baghone, P.S. Tajpur Vaine, Dsitrict- Samastipur. 3. Shabhu wife of Md. Zamirul, Resident of Shahpur Baghone Tola Patrigilpur Post Patrgilpur, P.S. Tajpur O.P. Vaine, District- Samastipur. 4. Rukhsana Khatoon wife of Muzaffar Hussain, resident of Ratanpur, Thana Vishanpur, P.O. Vishanpur, District- Darbhanga. 5. Bibi Rozidan wife of late Mehdi, 6. Layaq Ali, 7.Md. Jameel, 8. Md. Naseem, 9. md. Haseeb, 10. Md. Moti 11. Md. Sami, All sons of late Mehdi, 12. Tahira Khatoon wife of Md. Mustaquim, Nos. 5 to 12 residents of village-Shahpur Baghone, Post Baghone, P.S.Tajpur Vaine,District- Samastipur. 2. 20.4.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This revision application has been filed by the defendant Nos. 9 and 10 against the order dated 18.03.2009 passed by Civil Judge Junior Division-I, Samastipur, in title suit No.28 of 2002 by which the learned court below has allowed petition of the plaintiff under Order-VI Rule-17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment in the plaint. From the order impugned, it appears that the plaintiffs pleaded in the plaint that from the old plot no. 2510 new plot was carved out being plot no. 4727 which was due to typing mistake numbered as 4726 with plaint. However the old plot no. and the area of the plot being 25 decimal remains the same. - 2 - Hence, the learned court below has found that it was mere typing mistake by which the new plot no. 4727 has been typed as 4726. The leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that amendment has been allowed at a belated stage when the arguments have already started and the evidence of the defendants has been adduced on the basis of plot no.4626. Since, it is apparent that identity of plot does not change as old plot number and its area remains the same which was within the full knowledge of the defendants, it cannot be accepted that the defendants have been mislead due to incorrect plot no. of the new plot mentioned in plaint. This court also finds that due to late filing of this amendment application for correcting the typing mistake, the court below has awarded a cost of Rs.1000/- also. In the circumstances, this court does not find any error in the order of learned court below and therefore, does not find any merit in the revision application which is dismissed. However, the defendants will be at liberty to raise the issue at the appellate stage, if they are able to establish that any prejudice was caused to them in the matter. (J. N. Singh, J.) Ravi/-