Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Sri R.S. Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S. Chauhan, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Sri R.S. Chauhan submitted that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit and that the writ petition may be disposed of at the admission stage itself.

2. The petitioner is a plaintiff and had filed a suit for the cancellation of the sale-deed dated 29-6-1998. This date “29-6-1998” has been specifically alleged in paragraph 8 of the plaint. However, in paragraph Nos. 15 and 16, the date of the sale deed was mentioned as “29-8-1998”. In the prayer clause, the same date “29-8-1998” had been mentioned. The said suit was dismissed by a judgment dated 7-9-2004 against which, the petitioner filed a regular appeal before the appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal the petitioner realised that there was a clerical error in paragraph 15 as well as in the prayer clause of the plaint and therefore, moved an application for an amendment of the plaint, under Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. The said application was rejected by the appellate Court by an order dated 6-3-2006 on the ground that the entire basis of the su