16.9.2009 Present: Mr. Naresh K. Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sood, Advocate, for the respondents. CMPMO No. 193 of 2009 The plaintiff’s application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking amendment of the plaint stands rejected in terms of order dated 12.2.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 245 of 2003, titled as Sh. Om Parkash versus Smt. Sneh Lata and another. In effect the plaintiff is seeking amendment to bring on record the dimensions of the shop which is the subject matter of the suit, including other consequential and incidental amendments. Alongwith the plaint the plaintiff had filed a site plan indicating the dimensions of the shop to be 5.6 X 15 feet but however in the body of the plaint the same was inadvertently and erroneously written as 5.6 X 5 feet. It is this mistake which is sought to be corrected. The Court below has rejected the application for the reason that with the allowing of the application the plaintiff would be permitted to not only introduce a new cause of action but also enlarge the scope of the original suit. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the Court below ought to have allowed the application for the reason that the plaintiff was neither trying to introduce a new case nor enlarge the scope of the suit as it stood originally filed. The plaintiff was only trying to correct a typographical error which had crept in at the time of -2- typing the plaint and in any event the correction sought to be carried out was absolutely in consonance with the case as originally set up by the plaintiff which is evident from the site plan annexed alongwith the plaint. The amendment being mere clarificatory in nature cannot be said to have been brought in with the malafide intent of delaying the proceedings. It is true that in none of the earlier occasions when the plaintiff had sought amendment of the plaint this fact was brought to the notice of the Court but however it is equally true that the plaintiff has explained that the error was noticed when the record of settlement was prepared. Hence in the facts and circumstances the impugned order dated 12.2.2009 is set aside. Plaintiff’s application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC stands allowed. The amended plaint is stated to have been filed along with the application. Let written statement to the amended plaint be filed by the defendant within a period of eight weeks. Parties are directed to appear before the Court on 10th November, 2009. Petition is disposed of. CMP No. 120/2009 Disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. September 16, 2009 (PK)