CRP 468/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. H.R. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents, though, the name of his learned counsel is ref lected in the cause list. No prayer for adjournment has been made. This petitio n is therefore taken up for final disposal. The order in challenge is one dated 05.10.2010 passed by the learned Munsiff, Bi lasipara in Misc. (J) Case No.109/10 arising out of Title Suit No.358/02(later r egistered as T.S. No.48/07 as is submitted by the learned counsel for the petiti oner), thereby rejecting the prayer of the petitioner-defendant seeking amendmen t of the written statement filed by him along with others. The respondent herein has instituted the aforementioned suit praying for a decre e for declaration of his title in and possession of the suit land and also for a mandatory injunction directing the official defendants therein to record the sa me (suit land) in his name. His pleaded case is that during the last settlement operation, a plot of land measuring 1 Bigha 4 kathas out of an area of 2 Bighas 2 kathas and 10 lechas had been recorded in his name and the remaining 3 kathas 10 lechas in the name of Soban Ali, the deceased father of the defendants wrong ly. According to the respondent-plaintiff taking advantage of such mutation the defendants conspired to disposses him from the suit land. The suit was thus fi led seeking the aforementioned relief. The present petitioner was impleaded as Defendant No.5 in the suit. The defenda nts collectively filed a written statement asserting their right, title, and int erest in and possession of the suit land. In Paragraph - 6 of the written statem ent, they averred that the land which had been wrongly recorded in their name is that of their predecessor in interest which is in their possession and that the y had constructed dwelling houses thereon. While the suit was pending, an application was filed by the defendants verified by one Md. Abdul Latif, the Defendant No.4 seeking amendment in paragraph - 6 th ereof by deleting the word wrongly mentioned therein. The amendment was sough t for pleading that it was due to typographical mistake. They contended that if the amendment was not allowed, it would result in irreparable loss to them. A written objection was filed on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff asserting i nter alia that the prayer for amendment was not maintainable as it had been made after the commencement of the trial. They also questioned the authenticity of t he application the same having been verified by Abdul Latif, by subscribing his thumb impression. The learned Court below sustained the objection raised and rej ected the prayer for amendment on the following grounds: (1) The prayer had been made after the commencement of the trial; (2) The defendants lacked in diligence in making the belated prayer and (3) The amendment if allowed, would change the nature and character of the s uit. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that having regard to the writt en statement submitted on behalf of the defendants, the word wrongly appearing in paragraph - 6 is apparently a typographical error and that therefore, the am endment if not granted would only lead to multiplicity of litigation, which is a voidable in law. While admitting that the prayer for a amendment is a little be lated, Mr. Ahmed has contended that in the interest of justice and for a fair, f inal and complete adjudication of the suit, the prayer for amendment ought to ha ve been allowed by the learned Court below. Having regard to the rival pleadings, the summary whereof has been set out herei nabove, I am inclined to accept the pleas raised on behalf of the petitioner. T he word wrongly appearing in paragraph- 6 of the written statement is clearly a misfit, and out of context in the face of the otherwise consistent stand of th e defendants’ vis-à-vis the claim of the respondent-plaintiff. The underlying p urpose of permitting amendments by pleadings in a civil proceeding being to deci de the real controversy between the parties, in the opinion of this Court in att endant facts and circumstances technicalities ought to be eschewed. In the above view of the matter, the amendment as sought for by the defendants, namely, deletion of the word wrongly in paragraph - 6 of their written stateme nt is allowed. The learned court below would proceed accordingly. The petition is allowed. No costs.