1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 22.7.2013, whereby an application filed by the plaintiffs, Annexure P/4, dated 24.4.2013 is allowed by the Court below. Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, assailed this order on the ground that at the stage the amendment application was filed, the matter was already fixed for plaintiffs' evidence. The trial has begun and, therefore, unless due diligence was shown, amendment could not have been allowed by the Court below.

2. It is contended that the plaintiffs have not shown any due diligence and without establishing due diligence, it was not open for the Court below to allow the amendment application. It is further submitted that by no stretch of imagination, the error in the plaint can be treated as a “typing error”. It is submitted that not only at one place, but at three places in the plaint, the plaintiffs have mentioned the name of father as “Funda”. In addition, in “Vakalatnama” and the registered address furnished by the plaintiffs before the Court below, the name of father is shown as “Funda”. He submits that if these documents are read conjointly, conclusion will be inevitable that the alleged mistake occurred is not a typographical one and, therefore, the Court below has erred in mechanically allowing the said amendment application. In support of this, he relied on the judgments of Supreme Court, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 409 ( Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another) and (2012) 2 SCC 300 (J. Samuel and others v. Gattu Mahesh and others). Lastly, it is contended that the amendment was allowed subject to payment of Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One Thousand Only) as costs. The Court below has further erred in permitting the amendment to be incorporated without even ensuring payment of this costs, which amounts to serious flaw in the decision making process.

3. Per contra, Shri Nirankari, learned counsel for respondents No.1

to 5/Plaintiffs, supported the order. He submits that the error in the plaint is a typographical error and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are hyper-technical in nature. He submits that no prejudice is caused to the other side, and therefore, the Court below has not erred in allowing the amendment by imposing costs. He also relied on the same judgment of

J. Samuel (supra) to submit that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the error does fall within the four corners of “typing error”. It is submitted that the facts and circumstances of J.Samuel (supra) were different and the said judgment has no application in the fact situation of the present case. He relied on AIR 2009 Allahabad 178 (Smt. Manoj Kumari & others v. Gokaran Nath Misra & another) to submit that such amendment and correction of typing error is permissible under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. No doubt, the plaintiff in the suit at more than one place has shown the name of father as “Funda”. The contention of Shri S.K. Shrivastava is that if the name of father is erroneously mentioned at more than one place in the plaint, it cannot be treated as typing mistake; more so when in “Vakalatnama” and registered address furnished before the Court below, the same mistake occurred, i.e., name of father is shown as “Funda”.

6. I do not see any merit in this contention. It is a matter of common knowledge in legal circle that “Vakalatnama” and registered address etc. are filled up by clerical staff/Munshis. Sometimes, these are filled up by junior/assisting Advocates. They gather this information about the name from the cause title of the plaint. Since in the cause title of the plaint, the name is erroneously mentioned as “Funda”, the mistake was repeated in Vakalatnama” and registered address furnished by the plaintiff. However, the core question is whether this mistake can be treated as a typing error and whether such amendment can be allowed afte