Hon’ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 19.3.2001 passed by Additional Special District and Session Judge, Fatehpur, whereby the application No. 34-Kha filed by the claimant/applicant under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in Claim Petition No. 109 of 1998 has been rejected.

2. The husband of the revisionist No. 1 died in motor accident on 25.4.1998. The claimant/applicant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The registration number of the vehicle involved in the accident was mentioned UTW-5467 in the FIR. Subsequent to the filing of the claim petition owner of the vehicle appeared and filed its written statement stating that the registration number of the vehicle involved in the accident was wrongly mentioned by the claimant and in fact the vehicle No. UTW-6075 was involved in the accident and not UTW-5467. Police after the investigation also submitted the charge-sheet on 27.6.1998 Vehicle No. UTW-6075 was found to be involved in the accident and the said vehicle No. UTW-6075 was released on personal bond of Rs. 1.5 lac.

3. Subsequent thereto an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 was filed by the claimant stating that the vehicle number involved in the accident was UTW-6075 and not UTW-5467 as such the prayer was made that the claimant be permitted to amend the claim petition accordingly by substituting the registration number of the vehicle UTW-6075 in place of UTW-5467. The said amendment application was rejected by the Court below. Hence the present revision.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2 despite the matter taken up in the revised list.

5. It appears that the registration number of the vehicle in dispute was mis-described and the registration number of the disputed vehicle was mentioned UTW-5467 instead of actual vehicle No. UTW-6075. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that immediately after the accident, causing the death of the husband of the claimant No. 1, the mental condition of the complainant at that point of time was not proper as such the registration number of the disputed vehicle was incorrectly described in the FIR and consequently the same registration number was also mentioned in the claim petition.

6. It was further submitted that in fact, in the course of investigation by the police it was found that the vehicle in question involved in the accident was UTW-6075 and not UTW-5467 and the charge-sheet was also submitted to this effect, moreover, the owner in his written statement admitted that the vehicle having registration No. UTW-6075 was involved in the accident.

7. The respondent No. 2 even though has not appeared to argue the matter but the counter affidavit filed by it is on the record, wherein it has been stated that the owner of the vehicle has colluded with the claimant, therefore, the Court below was justified in rejecting the amendment application.

8. It appears that the Court below has taken a very technical view of the matter. Merit of the amendment is hardly a relevant consideration. It is open to the defendant to raise their objection with regard to the amended plaint by making correspondence amendment in its written statement. Mistake in description of the registration number of the vehicle in plaint can be rectified in plaint by way of amendment. It does not change the nature of the suit and the discretion has to be exercised in a judicious evaluation of the facts and circumstances in which amendment is sought.

9. An amendment which sub-serves the ultimate cause of justice and avoid further litigation should be allowed. There was merely a mis-description of the registration number of the vehicle, and allowing the amendment application could not have worked in justice or cause prejudice to the other party.

10. A bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the amendment application has been rejected mechanically in a most casua