IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 500 (M/S) of 2009 Rishi Pal S/o Khub Chand R/o –H. No. 273, Mohalla-West Ambar Talab Roorkee Pargana & Tehsil Roorkee District Haridwar ……………Petitioner. Versus (1) Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sadhu Ram, R/o House No. 284-A Mohalla-West Ambar Talab Roorkee Pargana & Tehsil Roorkee District Haridwar ………Contesting Respondent (2) Rajesh Kumar S/o Rishi Pal (3) Vikas Kumar S/o Rishi Pal (4) Km. Khusbu D/o Rishi Pal All 2 to 4 R/o –H. No. 273, Mohalla-West Ambar Talab Roorkee Pargana & Tehsil Roorkee District Haridwar ………Proforma Respondents Sri A.K. Sharma, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Rajendra Singh, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard Sri A.K. Sharma, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. (2) This petition, moved under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order 2 dated 11.10.2007, passed by trial court (Civil Judge (Senior Division), Roorkee), in Suit No. 16 of 2004 and order dated 05.02.2009, passed by District Judge, Haridwar, in Civil Revision No. 101 of 2007, whereby order allowing the amendment application by the trial court, is affirmed by said court. (3) Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff / respondent filed Suit No. 16 of 2004 for specific performance of contract. A written statement was filed by the defendant (present petitioner) and issues were framed by the trial court on 04.01.2007. Thereafter, an amendment application 83A was moved by the plaintiff / respondent under Order VI, Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to delete the date ‘28.11.2003’ mentioned in the plaint and in its place it was prayed that ‘29.11.2003’ be permitted to be substituted. The trial court after hearing the parties allowed the amendment application vide order dated 11.10.2007. Aggrieved by said order, the defendant filed Civil Revision No. 101 of 2007. The same is also dismissed vide impugned order dated 05.02.2009 by the revisional court. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the courts below have erred in law in allowing the amendment application 83A, moved by the plaintiff before the trial court, as the same was not only highly belated but also the plaintiff was retreating from his admission. On perusal of the impugned orders passed by the courts below, this Court finds that it was only a clerical mistake in the date which was 3 sought to be corrected by the plaintiff by moving amendment application and appears to be bona fide. Therefore, this Court does not find that the trial court or revisional court has committed any error of law. (5) Therefore, the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is dismissed summarily. (Stay Application No. 2556 of 2009 also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant., J.) 06.04.2009 NS