JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dtd. 29/3/2022 (Annexure P-1) passed in Civil Suit No.1-A/2015 by the Vth Civil Judge, Junior Division, Indore whereby, the application dtd. 11/3/2022 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 of the C.P.C. filed by the petitioner/plaintiff has been rejected on the ground of absence of due diligence shown by the petitioner/plaintiff.

2. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that due to typographical error, the it could not mention the proper survey number of the disputed property as in para 10 of the plaint, it is mentioned as Survey No. 149 instead of Survey Nos.253, 249, 250, 251 and 252, although all the other particulars of the property are identical and there is no change in its description as its boundaries which are also the same as also the area which is 4.09 acres.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that, it is true that the petitioner/plaintiff could not file the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC earlier, but as it is only a clerical error even if the application is filed subsequent to closure of the evidence, on the date of final hearing, the application ought to have been allowed as the petitioner does not intend to lead any further evidence in support of the aforesaid amendment nor any additional document is required to be filed as the pleadings are complete in respect of the property in question and the only difficulty is the description of the Survey numbers which have been wrongly mentioned by the plaintiff in the map which was sough to to be rectified by way of the amendment application which has been dismissed as aforesaid.

4. In support of his submissions, Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, High Court of Madras, High Court of Bombay and Calcutta High Court respectively in the cases of Mount May Enterprises vs. Jivratna Medi Treat Private Ltd. reported as (2015) 4 SCC 182: 2015 SCC OnLine SC 84; Kannayiram vs. Thalaiwar, Thoppampatti Ooratchi Mandram, Morappur Post, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District and others reported as 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 11307: (2016 4 LW 128: (216) 2 MWN (Civil) 346: 2017 AIR CC 965; Rajashri alias Rajani U. Bhakta & others vs. Maria Elsa De Noronha Wolfango Da Silva since deceased thr. Lrs. Antonio S.C. Pereria and another reported as 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 178: (2010) 5 Mah LJ 190: (2010) 3 Bom CR 65: (2010) 95 AIC (SUM7) 4 : (2010) 4 AIR Bom R. 406 and Gopi Nath Dalui vs. Sukumar Bhusan Nandy reported as 2012 SCC OnLine Cal. 12426: (2013) 1 ICC 374: 2013 AIR CC 1147.

5. On the other hand, the prayer is vehemently opposed by Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal, learned Counsel for the respondent /defendant and it is submitted that the suit itself was filed by the plaintiff/petitioner in the year 2008, and the parties closed their evidence in the year 2022 and in para 10 of the written statement filed in the year 2008 itself, it clearly denies the description of the property, but despite a specific objection being raised by the respondent/defendant, the petitioner did not take any steps to rectify the aforesaid mistake and thereafter, even in the crossexamination of the plaintiff on 9/3/2015, he was also confronted to the averments of the plaintiff/petitioner and misdescription of the property in which he has admitted the same, but even thereafter no such application has been filed and at this juncture at the fag end of the trial the application is filed only to further drag the matter.

6. Counsel for the respondent has further submitted that no illegality or jurisdictional error has been committed by the learned Judge of the trial court in coming to the conclusion that there is no due diligence shown by the petitioner in filing the aforesaid application and no reason has been assigned by the petitioner as to why the application has been filed after a period of 14 years. Thus