CRP 343/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE K. MERUNO 1. Office note dated 15.2.2011 indicates that notices upon the respondents 1 to 5 were served by registered post with AD on 9.9.2010. Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 has been filed and Mr. B. Kalita, learned counsel has entered appearance on their behalf. With regards to the notice upon the respond ent no.5, 30 days’ time has already expired as per the postal journal enclosed i n the office note dated 15.2.2011. In this view of the matter, the notice upon t he respondent no.5 is deemed to be completed. 2. Heard Mr.N. Dhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and also Mr. B. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4. 3. The instant revision petition has been filed being aggrieved by the impu gned ordered dated 7.6.2010 (Annexure-4) whereby the Court below rejected the ap plication for amendment. The amendment petition was filed for correction of some typographical mistakes by inserting the word eastern in place of the word we stern in Schedule-I land. However, the Court below was not satisfied and reject ed the amendment. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, t hough the prayer has been vehemently objected to by Mr. B. Kalita, learned couns el appearing for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the amendment, which does not basically change the basic structure of the plaint, should have been allowed but such amendments have not been allowed. In this view of the matt er, the impugned order dated 7.6.2010 passed by the Court of the Munsiff No.2, K arimganj in Misc. case No.73 of 2010 arising out Title Suit No.211 of 1997 is he reby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Court below to al low the amendment and take up the matter expeditiously since the case has been p ending for a long time. With the above direction, this revision petition is allo wed to the extent as indicated above. 4. Revision petition stands disposed of.