JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Jain, J.

Instant revision petition is directed against the order dated 31st of May, 2016 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana whereby the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC by the respondent/plaintiff seeking amendment in the plaint has been allowed.

2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. the petitioner as the defendant and the respondent as the plaintiff.

3. Plaintiff filed suit for possession w.r.t. possession of property bearing house No.7775/8, New Janta Nagar, Gill No.2, ATI Road, Ludhiana. The property was also described by boundaries.

4. Suit was contested by the defendant. Among the other preliminary objections, it was specifically pleaded that the plaintiff has no connection with the property bearing No.7775/8, New Janta Nagar, Gill No.2, ATI Road, Ludhiana i.e. the property mentioned in the head-note of the plaint.

5. The present application was moved by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint to the effect that inadvertently and due to typographical mistake the description of the suit property was wrongly written as property bearing No.7775/8, New Janta Nagar, Gill No.2, ATI Road, Ludhiana instead of bearing M.C. No.7775/8/1, New Janta Nagar, Gill No.2, ATI Road, Ludhiana.

6.. The application was contested by the defendant/petitioner claiming that the same has been moved at a fag end of the trial.

7. Trial Court vide impugned order allowed the application holding that the number of the property having been mentioned wrongly owing to typographical mistake, the amendment was necessary to adjudicate the lis effectively. While allowing the application, Trial Court specifically put the plaintiff to the condition that no fresh evidence will be led qua the amendment.

8. Mr. Gautam counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that the amendment has been allowed at a fag end. He further submits that after the defendant specifically pleaded in the written statement that the plaintiff had no concern with the property bearing No. 7775/8, it cannot be stated that the plaintiff was not within the knowledge of the said fact and thus the present application at the fag end is bona fide. He further submits that the entire evidence has been led w.r.t. 7775/8 and even the site plan is w.r.t. 7775/8 not w.r.t. 7775/8/1.

9. I have considered rival contentions of the parties.

10. Present revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. While explaining the scope of Article 227 and supervisory jurisdiction conferred on High Court, Supreme Court in the case of Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others, (2003) 3 SCC 524 observed as under:

'7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.'

11. While dealing with revisional proceedings arising out of order deciding application seeking amendment of pleadings, Apex Court in the case of M/s Estralla Rubber vs. Dass Estate (Pvt.) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97 dealt with the scope of Article 227 of Constitution of India observing as under:

'6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this Article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals wit