CW 13144/10 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** 1- Civil Writ Petition No.13144/2010 Bafati Khan Versus Janno & Ors. 2- Civil Writ Petition No.13147/2010 Bundu @ Abdul Rehman Versus Janno & Ors. Date of Order ::: 18/10/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Suresh Pareek, for petitioners Since both the petitions involve common issue, hence were heard together and are being disposed of by this order. Both the petitions have been filed assailing orders dt.11/02/2009 passed by Sub Divisional Officer accepting applications filed U/O 6 R.17, CPC seeking amendment in the plaints – against which revision petitions preferred by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue were also dismissed vide orders dt.20/07/2010. Respondent-1 (plaintiff) filed a revenue suit seeking declaration & permanent injunction before SDO Chaksu (Jaipur district) and after the written statement was filed by petitioner-defendants, but before the issues could be framed on the basis of pleadings on record, applications were filed by respondent- plaintiff U/O 6 R.17, CPC seeking amendment in the plaints, which was seriously objected by petitioner on the premise that the amendment CW 13144/10 //2// as sought for would change the nature of the suit and at such belated stage, such permission of seeking amendment would not be in the spirit of provisions contained in O.6 R.17, CPC, particularly after the amendment having been incorporated in the CPC. Counsel submits that after the written statement being filed by defendants, the amendment is being sought for by respondent- plaintiff relating to her own pedigree which shows that the amendments sought to be pleaded are not bonafide and in the spirit of O.6, R.17, CPC. It has come on record that the applications seeking amendment in the plaint was filed by respondent-plaintiff before the issues could be framed. The learned SDO vide order impugned observed that before the trial could commence, application for amendment was filed and what has been prayed for in the application U/O.6 R.17, CPC in no manner would change the nature of the suit and respondent- plaintiff being an old illiterate lady, such a human error would always be permitted to be rectified through amendment as prayed for in the application. However, revision petition was filed by the petitioner but has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide orders impugned. CW 13144/10 //3// This Court has considered the contentions raised by Counsel and with his assistance, perused the material on record and does not find any manifest error being committed by the SDO while permitting the amendment as sought for by respondent- plaintiff in the plaints, which may call for interference. Consequently, both the writ petitions fails and are hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.3/ 13144CW2010Oct18Ds(2).doc