CRP 469/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MADAN B. LOKUR The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 29th September, 2010 passe d by the learned Civil Judge, Jorhat in T.S. No.92 of 2000. Respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for a decree of eviction against t he petitioner/defendant in respect of a room which was described in Schedule-A o f the plaint as follows :- SCHEDULE-A Suit Room A room on the ground floor of the building known as Sita Nath Bhawan sta nding on part of Dag No.2734(old) 469(New) P. Patta No.164(New)/891 (old) Block No.2 Jorhat Town Municipality Holding No.279 part now change to 288 A part of Wa rd No.8 measuring 217.25 sq.feet bounded on North Room under occupation of Jadun ath Shome running his Govinda Ladies Corner : East -Car Ali : West-Remaining pro perties of Sitanth Shome (Now of pltff’s.) South Ananda Pharmacy occupied by Ash utosh Baidya. Much later when the suit came up for trial and the plaintiff filed its a ffidavit by way of evidence, it was realized that the property was not correctly described inasmuch as instead of the boundary on the North, it should have been the boundary on the South and instead of the boundary on the South, it should h ave been the boundary on the North. The plaintiff, accordingly, filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rectifying the error in the plaint. This application was opposed by the defendant and by the impugned order dated 29th September, 20 10, the application was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.1000/-. According to learned counsel for the defendant, who is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, the application should have been dismis sed since it does now show due diligence. It is submitted that the application f or amendment is delayed by at-least 11 years from the inception of the suit and was filed after commencement of the trial. In so far as the delay in moving the application is concerned, it is com mon ground that the suit was stayed for a considerable period of time. But learned counsel for the defendant points out that he objected to the erroneo us description of the suit property in the written statement. However, inspite o f that, the plaintiff did not take necessary steps to amend the plaint, particul arly in respect of the boundary. In this regard, it is submitted that the plaint iff did not show the necessary due diligence. No doubt the plaintiff has been quite lackadaisical in delaying the amen dment for a considerable period of time. But the fact is that the error in descr iption of the suit property in the schedule appears to be an inadvertant error. The suit related to only one room which is in occupation of the defendant. Evict ion of the defendant was sought by the plaintiff from this room. There is no con fusion about the suit property in so far as the parties are concerned unless of- course the erroneous description of the suit property continues. It is only to r ectify the inadvertant error in description for which the plaintiff moved an app lication for amendment. In allowing the amendment, the learned Civil Judge did not commit any er ror. The correction in the schedule to the plaint will not change the character or nature of the suit filed by the plaintiff. Under the circumstances, there is no merit in the revision petition. It is accordingly dismissed. However, the learned Trial Court has imposed costs of Rs.1,000/-. In vie w of the fact that there was considerable delay in filing the application for am endment the costs are enhanced to Rs.3,000/-. The plaintiff will pay the costs t o the defendant within two weeks from today. Revision petition is disposed of.