JUDGMENT

Amit Rawal, J. - The petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved of the impugned order whereby the application submitted for amendment of the plaint at the final stage of the suit has been dismissed.

2. Mr. Jasbir Rattan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-Paras Ram and others instituted the suit for declaration that plaintiff No.1 being owner in possession to the extent of share in the land as described in the plaint whereas plaintiff No.2 and 3 to the extent of their shares. Due to typographical mistake in para 3- A of the plaint it has been mentioned that the partition of the land is with the consent of the co-sharers whereas it should have been mentioned that the partition of the land was "not" with the consent of the co-sharers of the land. Further in sub-para (iv) of para No.3-A, it has been mentioned inadvertently that the possession of Square No.36, Killa No.11(2-4) was given to the petitioner-plaintiff but in fact it was to be mentioned that possession of Square No.36 Killa No.11(2-4) was wrongly given and various other errors were required to be corrected, which had been mentioned in para 2 of the revision petition and as wel