4. To rec(cid:9)fy this inadvertent error, the plain(cid:9)ffs moved an applica(cid:9)on seeking permission to place on record the correct amended plaint, which has been allowed by the trial Court through the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the pe(cid:9)(cid:9)oner contends that in the absence of a fresh applica(cid:9)on under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the plain(cid:9)ffs could not have been permi(ed to place on record another amended plaint.

6. The conten(cid:9)on is devoid of merit.

7. The record demonstrates that the original plaint consistently referred to the sale deed dated 31.05.2017, and the amendment earlier permi(ed by the Court was confined only to correc(cid:9)on of the document number. The incorrect men(cid:9)on of the date 21.03.2011 in the amended plaint was not the result of any judicially permi(ed amendment but was clearly a clerical and typographical mistake commi(ed while incorpora(cid:9)ng the earlier amendment.

8. A dis(cid:9)nc(cid:9)on must be drawn between a substan(cid:9)ve amendment altering the nature or founda(cid:9)on of the pleadings and a clerical correc(cid:9)on intended to align the amended pleading with the Court’s earlier order and the original cas