Civil Revision No.3595 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3595 of 2009 Date of decision : 31-7-2009 Smt. Jagmati ....Petitioner VERSUS Dharambir and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Yash Pal Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the respondents. RAJIVE BHALLA, J. Prayer in this petition is to set aside the order dated 04-06-2009, passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Gohana, dismissing the petitioner's application for amendment of the plaint. Counsel for the petitioner submits that while preparing arguments, the counsel before the trial court realised that the Civil Suit No.206 dated 23-03-1985 has been wrongly typed as No.205. in the prayer clause. Cosequently, an application was filed for Civil Revision No.3595 of 2009 -2- amendment of this inadvertent typing error. The learned trial court rejected the prayer for amendment on the ground that such a belated amendment cannot be allowed. It is submitted that as the error is typographical in nature and would not require any fresh issue or evidence, the learned trial court should have allowed the application for amendment. Counsel for the respondent submits that in view of an amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure, an application for amendment of the plaint cannot be allowed after the settlement of issues. It is submitted that as the prayer for amendment is belated, the Court below rightly dismissed the application. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. A perusal of the plaint, discloses that in the body of the plaint, the number of the civil suit is correctly recorded as Civil Suit No.206 but on account of an inadvertent typographical error, on the part of the counsel before the trial court, the civil suit number has been wrongly typed as Civil Suit No.205, in the prayer clause. An innocuous prayer for amendment which does not effect the merits of the case and merely seeks to rectify an inadvertent typographical error can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings, by exercise of inherent powers. In this view of the matter, the learned trial court committed an error in dismissing the application. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed, the order dated 04-06-2009 is set aside and the prayer for amendment of the plaint is allowed, subject to payment of Rs. 3000/ as costs. The learned trial court is directed to take the amended plaint on record Civil Revision No.3595 of 2009 -3- and proceed to hear arguments and pronounce judgment as, no further issue arises, or evidence is to be led. (RAJIVE BHALLA) 31-07-2009 JUDGE manju