The court established the permissibility of amending pleadings to rectify typographical errors and referenced the power of the court to allow delayed amendment in deserving cases by compensating the other side with costs.

1. The Plaintiff in O.S. No. 1548 of 2011 on the file of the learned XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is the revision petitioner herein. The suit was originally filed as C.S. No. 1192 of 2008 before this Court and subsequently it was transferred and re-numbered as O.S. No. 1548 of 2011. The suit was filed for the relief of declaration, mandatory injunction and also for a permanent injunction morefully set out in the plaint. The suit was decreed exparte on 08.11.2012. Thereafter, a petition in I.A. No. 184 of 2012 in O.S. No. 1548 of 2012 was filed on 06.12.2012 under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC was filed by the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit seeking to set aside the exparte decree dated 08.11.2012. This application was resisted by the plaintiff by filing a counter affidavit. Thereafter, the defendants 1 and 2 have filed the instant application in I.A. No. 3 of 2013 in I.A. No. 184 of 2012 in O.S. No. 1548 of 2011 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the affidavit and petition in I.A. No. 184 of 2012 by replacing "O.S. No. 1548 of 2011" instead of "O.S. No. 1485 of 2011" in the prayer portion of the affidavit and petition. Even for this application, a counter was filed by the plaintiff praying to dismiss the application for amendment. The trial court, after considering the rival submissions and after elaborate discussion allowed I.A. No. 3 of 2013 with costs of Rs.500/-. Accordingly, the defendants 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 2 herein have paid the cost. Thereafter, the plaintiff has come forward with the present revision petition.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the amendment sought to be made by the defendants 1 and 2, after disposal of the suit, is legally not sustainable. The court below has passed the impugned order only by considering Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and not the proviso made therein. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC clearly stipulates that amendment can be permitted only before commencement of the trial. In this case, after the suit was decreed exparte, the present amendment is sought to be made and it was erroneously allowed by the trial court, therefore, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

3. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 2 herein would contend that the amendment sought to be made is to rectify a typographical error which had crept in. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 would further contend that the suit was decreed exparte and to set aside the exparte decree, the respondents 1 and 2 have filed I.A. No. 184 of 2012 in time. Subsequently, the respondents 1 and 2 have noticed that in the prayer portion, the suit number was wrongly mentioned as "O.S. No. 1485 of 2011" instead of O.S. No. 1548 of 2011. Unless the suit number which was wrongly mentioned is corrected, the respondents 1 and 2 could not get the exparte decree set aside. Therefore, the amendment has become necessary and such amendment can be made, altered or amended at any point of time. In any event, only the exparte decree is sought to be set aside by the respondents 1 and 2 for which the proposed amendment was very much essential. The trial court, considering the nature of amendment sought to be made, in the interest of justice, has rightly allowed the application with costs of Rs.500/-. The revision petitioner also received the costs amount imposed by the court below, while so, it is not open for the plaintiff/revision petitioner to file the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. I heard the counsel for both sides and by consent of counsel for both sides, the Civil Revision Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner elaborately argued on one point namely the amendment petition has been allowed by the court below after disposal of the suit and it is legally not sustainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on th