The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of due diligence in seeking amendments to correct typographical errors in legal documents.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. - The present revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 08.03.2017 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide which the application dated 18.01.2017 filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for permission to amend the plaint has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts, relevant to the present lis, are that the plaintiff-petitioner herein filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreements to sell dated 25.04.2008 and 24.06.2008 directing the defendants to execute and get registered sale deed of land measuring 4648 square yards out of Khasra Nos.105//18, 19, 22/2, 23/2, 105//22/1, 24/1 vide jamabandi for the year 2000-01 situated in village Kassabad, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. It is apt to mention that earlier the suit was for perpetual injunction and, thereafter, on an application for amendment the suit was converted into a suit for specific performance. Yet again, during the course of the trial, when the case was fixed for the plaintiff's evidence, the plaintiff-petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of plaint wherein it was mentioned that due to a typing mistake the date of the first agreement was mentioned in the plaint as 25.04.2008 instead of 30.04.2008 and the area of the land sold was mentioned as 4048 square yards in para 1 of the plaint and the balance amount in para 5-A was mentioned as Rs.90,04,800/- in place of Rs.1,00,08,800/- and the last date for execution of the sale deed was mentioned as 20.04.2012 in para 7 and that the same mistake occurred in the affidavit submitted by the plaintiffpetitioner in his evidence. By way of the application, the plaintiff-petitioner wanted to substitute the date of the first agreement as 30.04.2008 instead of 25.04.2008 and further, the area of the plot as 4648 instead of 4048 square yards. Further, an amendment was also sought in the balance sale consideration amount which was mentioned as Rs.90,04,800/- to be read as Rs.1,00,08,800/-. It was claimed that the minor mistakes occurred in the plaint due to typographical errors and due to inadvertence. The trial Court, vide a detailed order, dismissed the said application. Hence, the present revision petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that no new pleas are being added and that these were only typographical mistakes which were required to be corrected by way of the amendment application. To substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following judgments:-

i) Roshan Lal vs. Ram Piari & others, C.R. No.5708 of 2015 decided on 11.05.2016;

ii) Gurcharan Singh vs. Sukhdev Kumar, (2016) 184 PunLR 424 ;

iii) Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others vs. Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya, Qadian, a Registered Society, (2017) 188 PunLR 285 ;

iv) Shish Ram vs. Municipal Corporation Gurgaon and others, (2016) 183 PunLR 686 ; and

(v) Regd. Firm M/s Kathania Traders, Commission Agent vs. Krishan, C.R. No.5622 of 2015, decided on 22.05.2018.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the plaintiff-petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands and the amendments that are being sought now were not typing errors and that a perusal of the plaint would show that the dates were left blank and were later filled in by hand and, therefore, cannot be said to be typing errors. It is also contended by learned counsel for the respondents that in case a fresh suit was to be filed on the basis of the agreement dated 30.04.2008 the same would now be time-barred and, therefore, submitted that the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondents cited the following judgments to support his arguments:-

i) J. Samuel and others vs. Gattu Mahesh and others, (2012) 1 RCR(Civil) 903 ;

ii) Tarlok Singh vs. Vijay Kumar Sabharwal, (199