IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.586 of 2006 SUKHDEO MANDAL Versus DAROGA SINGH & ANR ----------- 4 20.10.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the opposite parties despite service of notices. In the opinion of this Court, a purely typographical error in the plaint as with regard to the date of conditional sale deed wrongly typed as 14.8.1995 and 6.8.1996 in place of 14.8.1985 and 6.8.1986 ought to have been allowed by the Court below especially when there was no lis much less any dispute on this issue in view of an admission made by the Defendants in paragraph no. 10 of the written statement. That being so, this Court would set aside the impugned order with a direction for incorporating such amendment as prayed for by the plaintiff petitioner in his application dated 18.1.2006 in the plaint. The defendants, if they so choose, may file their written statement confined only to such amendment within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is accordingly allowed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)