IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.25 of 2008 Date of decision: 23.05.2008. Smt.Tulsi and another …..Petitioners -Versus- Smt.Bandi and others ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioners: Mr.Dalip K. Sharma, Advocate. For respondents: Mr.J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This petition is directed against the order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Arki dated 5.11.2007 whereby he has rejected the application filed by the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) for amendment of the plaint. Briefly stated the facts are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents-defendants. In para 7 of the plaint it was alleged that Smt.Naiku was succeeded by her daughters Tulsi Devi i.e. the plaintiff No.1 and Smt.Dwarku deceased who had bequeathed her share in the above land in favour of plaintiff No.2 by a registered Will. In the other paragraphs also it is mentioned that the plaintiff No.2 derives her title from one Dwarku Devi. By means of this application for amendment it was prayed that the name of the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff No.2 had wrongly been typed as Dwarku and in fact her name was “Darshanu”. It was further averred that the amendment was necessitated because of the reason that by slip of pen the name of Darshanoo was shown as Dwarkoo. 2 To say the least, the application for amendment was drafted in a totally casual and cavalier fashion. No reason has been given in the application as to how the mistake occurred. There is no such expression known in the English language as “slip of pen”. Be that as it may, it is apparent that some typographical mistake has occurred and according to the plaintiffs the person who was predecessor-in- interest of plaintiff No.2 and sister of Smt.Tulsi was Darshanoo and not Dwarku. True it may be that after the amendment to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC the Court is debarred from allowing an application for amendment after commencement of trial in normal circumstances. However, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 as amended, itself provides that where the Court comes to the conclusion that despite due diligence the amendment is necessitated then the same can be allowed. In the present case, I find that the plaintiffs are not at all well versed with the English language. They have signed in Devnagri script. They obviously could not read what was written in the plaint and the mistake which occurred was more of a typographical/clerical mistake which may have occurred due to the negligence or fault of the counsel. The party should not suffer for the same. In fact the amendment is necessary so as to finally and effectively decide the dispute between the parties. In view of the above discussion, I find that the amendment should have been allowed. Consequently, the order of the learned Civil Judge is set- aside and the plaintiffs are allowed to amend the plaint. The amended plaint is ordered to be taken on record. While allowing this amendment I am also conscious of the fact that this amendment will not entail either framing of fresh issues or leading any fresh evidence. Sh.Dalip Sharma, learned counsel for the plaintiffs has fairly stated that his clients do not want to lead any further evidence as a consequence of this amendment. This amendment has been necessitated due 3 to the mistake of the counsel of the plaitniffs or their counsel and I have also found that the application for amendment has also been drafted in a slip shod manner. Hence, the plaintiffs are burdened with costs of Rs.1500/- which shall be paid to the respondents on the next date of hearing before the trial Court. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 27th June, 2008. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. May 23, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge