CRP 198/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR This petition is directed against the order dated 29/3/2010 passed by th e learned Munsiff No.1 at Morigaon in Misc. (J) Case No.73/09 in Title Suit No.3 0/09. The petitioners (who are defendants 1 and 2 in the Suit) filed a written statement before the learned Munsiff No. 1 at Morigaon. Thereafter, they filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Se ction 151 thereof seeking an amendment to the written statement on the ground th at there were certain typing errors and if these are not corrected, the petition ers would suffer an irreparable loss. The amendments as sought for read as follows:- In page No.3 of the plaint and in the paragraph No.4 of the said page in place of In the meantime all four sons of Lt.Sarusing Keot, Phatik Keot and Padu Keot half of the share of Manik Keot and as such Dimbeswar Keot took 1B-3K- 1-Ls are given to the plaintiff and the defendant No.1. In the result of plainti ff and the defendant (while they were in joint family) got 4B-4Ks-5Ls covered by dag No.201 P.P. No.93 in Pachatia Kisammat under Niz-Tetelia Mouza. In the meantime all the four sons of Lt.Sarusing Keot died. Manik Keot died leav ing no heir. The son of Padu Keot did not demand the land of lt. Manik Keot. But Dimbeswar Keot, S/O Lt. Haladhar Keot demanded half of the total land of Lt. Ma nik Keot and as such he took one Bigha three Kathas, One and half Lessas in the patta of the suit land and other share, i.e, One Bigha three kathas, one and hal f lessas were given to the plaintiff and the defendant No.1. in the result the p laintiff and the defendant No.1 while they were in joint family got four bighas, two kathas, five lessas covered by dag No.201, P.P. No.93 in Panchatia Kisamm u nder Niz-Tetelia Mouza are to be inserted by amending the plaint. The learned Trial Judge rejected the application for amendment in view o f the careless drafting by learned counsel for the petitioners/defendant 1 and 2 . Instead of seeking an amendment in the written statement, it was stated that t he amendment sought for was in the plaint. In view of the carelessness on the pa rt of learned counsel, the learned Trial Judge rejected the application for amen dment. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the petition ers/defendants 1 and 2 should not be prejudiced because of the negligence of the ir learned counsel. While it is correct that the drafting by learned counsel has been rather casual but because of his mistake, there is no reason for the petitioners/defendant 1 a nd 2 to suffer. Moreover, the respondent/plaintiff can be compensated by payment of costs for the amendment sought to be made. No doubt the petitioners should have been more careful before signing the applic ation for amendment. But they can be penalised for their casualness by the imp osition of costs. In that view of the matter, the ends of justice would be met i f the petition is allowed and the order dated 29/3/2010 set aside. It is ordered accordingly. A fresh written statement be filed within 4 (four) weeks from today subj ect to payment of costs of Rs.2000/- to be paid to the respondent/plaintiff. The parties will appear before the learned Trial Judge on 8/12/2010 for further pro ceedings. The petition is disposed of.