1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2009/2011 SHAMRAO H. DUPARE ..VS.. MAHADEO BACHWAT AND ANOR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mrs. R.S. Sirpurkar, adv for petitioner CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. D A T E : APRIL 27, 2011. Heard Mrs. Sirpurkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the orders passed by the trial court on 13.12.2010 and 22.2.2011, permitting the respondent to amend the plaint and dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for reviewing the order granting such permission. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the impugned orders, it appears that the trial court did not commit any error in allowing the amendment application filed by the respondent even after commencement of the trial. It appears on a reading of the amendment application that there was a typographical error in the plaint and instead of describing the property as Survey no.192, the description was shown as survey no. 199. The plaintiff desired to correct the typographical error as the same was noticed while the 2 plaintiff was being cross-examined. It is necessary to note that the petitioner would not be prejudiced by the order granting the amendment application as it was the case of the petitioner in the written statement that the survey number of the property was 192 and not 199. The proposed amendment was extremely necessary for effectively deciding the controversy between the parties. In the facts of the case the respondent cannot be non-suited on the basis of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The orders passed by the trial court call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP