C.R No.1482 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No.1482 of 2011 Date of decision: 3.3.2011. Amarjit Singh .............Petitioner v Amrik Singh and others ..............Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh,J In the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioner (legal representative of the original plaintiff- Satnam Kaur) has challenged the impugned order dated 8.2.2011 (P.4) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Amritsar whereby the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by defendants-respondent Nos.2 & 3 has been allowed. Plaintiff-Satnam Kaur filed civil suit against the defendants-respondents for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering into her peaceful possession over the suit land measuring 11 kanal 18 marlas as described in the head note of the plaint. During the pendency of the civil suit, an application (P.2) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by the defendants-respondent Nos.2 & 3 for amendment C.R No.1482 of 2011 #2# of the written statement to correct certain typographical errors. Notice of the application was issued to the plaintiff, who opposed the same and after hearing both the sides, the application was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.1000/-, hence the present revision petition. It is argued by learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that the learned trial Court has wrongly allowed the application for amendment of the defendants-respondent Nos.2 & 3 at the fag end of trial in a very illegal and erroneous manner and the same deserves to be set aside being contrary to the provisions of order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book. A perusal of the application dated 12.10.2010 (P.2) reveals that the applicants-defendant Nos.2 & 3 had taken a specific stand that defendant No.1 had sold the land measuring 11 kanal 17 marlas out of Killa No.28/18/1/1, 28/17 min taraf east (0-16) vide registered sale deed dated 4.12.2003 but while drafting written statement, it was wrongly mentioned that the defendants have got no concern with khasra No.28/17 and 18/1/1. A further perusal of the application reveals that due to some typographical mistake, at certain places, instead of word “defendants”, “plaintiff” should have been mentioned and there are other similar corrections, which are sought to be incorporated way of proposed amendment as mentioned in the application dated 12.10.2010 (P.2). There is no dispute that defendant-respondent No.1 has C.R No.1482 of 2011 #3# filed his separate written statement and has admitted that he had sold his share to the defendants-respondent Nos.2 & 3 by way of registered sale deed dated 4.12.2003 regarding the land in dispute and handed over the possession also. It is also an admitted fact that respondent Nos.2 & 3 have already produced on record the registered sale deed dated 4.12.2003 executed by defendant No.1 in their favour and the necessary amendments, which are sought to be made are only formal typographical errors, which can be said to be deliberate rather seems to be bonafide and if allowed, will not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this court is of the opinion that the proposed corrections by way of amendments are only innocuous and has rightly been allowed by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order dated 8.2.2011 (P.4). Accordingly, finding no merit worth interference under Article 227 of the Constitution in the present petition, the same is dismissed. 3.3.2011. (Jaswant Singh) manoj Judge