IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3204 of 2006 Between: Chavan Gyana Prakash. ... PETITIONER AND Chavan Yashoda Bai and others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. BANKATLAL MANDHANI Counsel for the Respondents : --NONE APPEARED-- The Court made the following: ORDER: The plaintiff in O.S.No.172 of 1989 for specific performance filed an application I.A.No.965 of 2005 for amendment of the plaint seeking to correct the typographical error in describing the suit agreement as dated 20.04.1983 in stead of the correct date as 20.01.1983. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said application on the ground that it is belated, plaintiff preferred this revision. 2. The suit, no doubt, was filed in September 1989 and thereafter; the plaint was amended on more than one occasion to bring on record the legal representatives of the defendants, who had died pending the suit. Thereafter, it appears that trial has proceeded and the suit agreement dated 20.01.1983 has also been marked as Ex.A1 and the suit is at the stage of arguments. At that stage, the plaintiff noticed that in para 6 of the plaint and elsewhere the suit agreement is wrongly shown as dated 20.04.1983 as against correct date of 20.01.1983. The said error is sought to be corrected by the present application for amendment. The petitioner also sought amendment of prayer to include the relief of delivery of possession. The aforesaid application for amendment was rejected by the Court below under the impugned order, primarily, on the ground that it is belated and by observing that earlier when the plaint was amended more than once this amendment was not sought for and as such, after the trial the amendment is not permissible. 3. Heard Mr. Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff. Notices to respondent Nos.3, 30, 31 and 32 were not served. By order dated 15.07.2010, this Court noticed that the third respondent’s notice is returned unclaimed whereas there was no record of service on respondent Nos.30, 31 and 32. Accordingly, this Court directed fresh notice to be taken out. The learned counsel for the petitioner has now filed proof of service with acknowledgements showing service on respondent Nos.3, 30, 31 and 32 once again. All the said notices have been served on 17.07.2010. The said respondents have not appeared either in person or through counsel. 4. I have seen the copy of the plaint appended in the material papers from page No.22 onwards. Though para 6 mentions the date of suit agreement as dated 20.04.1983, in the later part of the same para the correct dated is also mentioned i.e. 20.01.1983. In the earlier part of the said para, the date of suit agreement mentioned as 20.04.1983 is, therefore, apparently a mistake. Even otherwise, the said document was filed along with the plaint and now during the trial has been marked as Ex.A1. The date of the document is evident from the document itself and the mentioning of a different date in the plaint, therefore, is clearly a mistake, which warrants a correction, particularly, as petitioner states that it is only a typographical mistake. Though the trial of the case has proceeded, both the parties are aware that suit agreement is dated 20.01.983 and as such, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants if the said amendment is allowed. Similarly, the relief of possession in a suit for specific performance can be sought for at any stage and as such, by permitting the amendment with respect to relief of possession also not prejudice would be caused to the defendants. In view of the fact that the amendments proposed, as above, are merely corrections owing to typographical mistake, it would not be necessary for either of the parties to lead any further evidence. The application I.A.No.965 of 2005, therefore, deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice and is accordingly allowed setting aside the impugned order. The trial Court shall now proceed and dispose of the suit, after carrying out the amendments, in accordance with law expeditiously and in any case, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 29, 2010 DSK