Mrs. Daya Chaudhary, J.:- This revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 28.02.2017 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phillaur, Jalandhar, whereby, the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint has been dismissed.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, through his brother, namely, Sh. Harbans Singh, had purchased the land measuring 3 kanals 10 marlas 6.5 sarsai, out of total property along with all rights having Electric Motor Connection in the land, in dispute. Defendant/respondents threatened the petitioner to disconnect, transfer, shift or to sell out the tubewell connection or to create hindrance in use of tubewell connection. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from transferring, shifting and disconnecting the Electric Tubewell/Submersible Motor Connection bearing No.APR 102 of 7.5 HP and also for restraining the defendants from interfering into peaceful enjoyment and usage of the plaintiff.

3. Written statement to the suit was filed and thereafter, replication to the written statement was also filed. However, during pendency of the suit, the application was moved for correction of Tubewell/Submersible Motor Connection number as due to typographical mistake, it was mentioned as ‘APR-102’ in stead of “R-174 AP”. Said application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 28.02.2017, which is subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was only a typographical mistake and the same is a matter of record. Learned counsel also submits that the amendment regarding number is necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties. Neither the nature of suit is going to be changed nor any prejudice is going to be caused to the other party.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon judgment of this Court in case [2013(1) Law Herald (P&H) 899] : C.R. No.7375 of 2012 titled as Punjab National Bank vs Shri Chajju Ram and another, decided on 10.12.2012.

6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the impugned order as well as other documents available on the file.

7. Facts relating to filing of suit; filing of written statement/replication as well as filing of application for amendment/correction of tubewell connection number are not disputed.

8. The application for amendment of the pleadings has been dismissed only on the ground of commencement of trial. It is only a clerical/typographical mistake as correct number of tubewell has not been mentioned which is necessary for determining the controversy, in hand. It has been held in various judgments of Hon’ble the Apex Court as well as of this Court that typographical and clerical mistake can be corrected by the Court even after passing of judgment and decree. It can be corrected even during pendency of the appeal. The stage of the proceedings is not relevant. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings, if the same is required in the interest of justice. The purpose of allowing amendment is to minimise the litigation and also to determine the real controversy between the parties. While passing the impugned order, no reason, whatsoever, has been mentioned as to how the amendment is not necessary or how the other party is going to be prejudiced.

9. Even as per provisions of C.P.C under Sections 151, 152 and 153, clerical and typographical mistakes and errors in judgment and decree can be corrected by Court at any time either of its own motion or on the application moved by any of the party. This view was taken in case Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others vs K.K. Modi and others 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 577.

10. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code enables the parties to make amendment of the plaint which reads as under;

“17. Amendment