The Petitioner/Defendant has preferred the instant Civil Revision Petition before this Court as against the order dated 03.07.2012 in I.A.No.361 of 2012 in O.S.No.288 of 2009 passed by the Learned Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi.

2. The Learned Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi, while passing the impugned order on 03.07.2012, in I.A.No.361 of 2012 in O.S.No.288 of 2009 (filed by the Petitioner/Defendant), at paragraph 5, had, inter alia, observed that '... In the chief examination of D.W.1, amendment cannot be carried out. Presently, there would be no use in amending the written statement. Though the date of discharge was a necessary fact of the case, since the enquiry was over in regard to the Discharge, the present petition was not to be allowed. It would create a new case' and finally dismissed the petition without costs.

3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Defendant contends that the impugned order of the trial Court in I.A.No.361 of 2012 in O.S.No.288 of 2009 dated 03.07.2012 is an erroneous one, besides the same being contrary to law and against facts of the case.

4. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the trial Court had failed to take into account that the amendment sought for in I.A.No.361 of 2012 in O.S.No.288 of 2009 did not raise a 'New Case' or 'Any Alternative Plea'. As a matter of fact, because of the creeping in the simple typographical error in amendment in question was sought for by the Petitioner/Defendant.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner/Defendant filed I.A.No.361 of 2012 to amend the 'date of discharge of loan' in the written statement and in the proof affidavit. In reality, the actual date to be mentioned was 30.12.2008. But inadvertently and incorrectly the date i.e. 07.06.2003 was mentioned and hence, the amendment application/petition in I.A.No.361 of 2012 in O.S.No.288 of 2009 was filed. Unfortunately, the trial Court had dismissed the application based on erroneous reason.

6. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner emphatically takes a plea that by allowing the amendment application in I.A.No.361 of 2012 in O.S.No.288 of 2009, no prejudice or injustice would be caused to the Respondent/Plaintiff and further that, 'amendment of pleading' is only a matter of procedure and that the procedural law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct the path of 'substantive justice'.

7. Finally, it is the stand of the Petitioner that Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. enjoins that the Court may any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alternate or amend the pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just and necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Furthermore, it is the duty of a Court of Law not to harp on technicalities but to exercise its inherent power to advance the cause of justice.

8. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in support of the contention that a typographical error that has crept in, in regard to the date of discharge of loan, in the instant case, can be corrected by a Court of Law by means of filing of an application by the party concerned, places reliance on the order of this Court dated 08.07.2015 in C.R.P.(PD).No.2224 of 2013 (between R.Shanmuga Sundaram V. R.Ponnusamy), whereby and whereunder, at paragraph 3 to 5, it is observed and held as follows:

“3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for first respondent and also perused the original plaint produced by him, and on perusal of the same, it could be seen that in the cause of action para, the plaintiff has stated that the agreement was entered into on 16.09.2004. That apart, in the list of documents also, the plaintiff produced the registered sale agreement, dated 16.09.2004. Whereas, in para No.1 of the plaint, the plaintiff wrongly stated that, during the first week of November, 2004, the first defendant met him and ex