Arun Kumar Jha, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties on the point of admission and I intent to dispose of the instant petition at the stage of admission itself.

2. The petitioner, who was defendant 2nd party before the learned trial court, has challenged the order dated 19.05.2017 passed by learned Sub Judge-VII, West Champaran at Bettiah in Title Suit No. 142 of 2011, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the plaintiffs/respondents under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) has been allowed.

3. The case of the parties, as it appears from the record, is that the plaintiffs/respondents have filed Title Suit No. 142 of 2011 for partition to the extent of 3/10th of their share out of Schedule II land and buildings as also to appoint Pleader Commissioner. At the same time, plaintiffs also sought a direction to allow the plaintiffs to avail the right under Section 4 of the Partition Act with direction to defendant 2nd party to execute sale deed of conveyance in respect of property to the extent of share of his vendor, defendant no. 1. After the appearance of both sides the evidence was closed and argument has also been concluded. Thereafter, an amendment petition was filed by the plaintiffs on 15.05.2017. A rejoinder to the amendment petition was filed by the defendants. The said petition was allowed by the learned trial court which has been assailed in the instant petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court erred while allowing the petition for amendment. The learned trial court did not take into account the fact that the petition has been filed at much belated stage when the evidence of the parties was closed and argument was already heard and the matter was to be finally decided. The learned trial court also did not take into consideration the fact that there was no explanation for filing amendment petition at so belated stage. Learned counsel further submits that through the amendment, a new case is sought to be made out and basic nature of the suit land is tried to be changed. The amendment is time barred. The amendment would take away the right accrued to the petitioner with passage of time. Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable and the same may be set aside. Learned counsel has relied on a decision in the case of Shiv Kumari Kuar & Ors. vs. Anil Bhagat & Ors. reported in 2023(4) PLJR 146 to stress the point that there was no explanation of due diligence for filing amendment petition at the stage of final argument and further in that case also the mistake of the typist was shown as a reason.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that only a typographical error was sought to be corrected since in paragraph 3 of the plaint instead of 6 dhurs, 16 dhurs has been mentioned whereas in the Schedule of the plaint only 6 dhurs was mentioned so there was contradiction between the pleading of Schedule of the plaint and the body of the plaint. This contradiction was sought to be removed by filing amendment petition and learned trial court has rightly allowed the same. Learned counsel further submits that on account of delay, a cost of Rs.800/- was imposed upon the plaintiffs and the defendants were also given liberty to file additional written statement so there was no infirmity in the impugned order and hence, the instant petition may be dismissed. Learned counsel has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Anr, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that all amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. In the present case, the d