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 case set up by the party. Procedural law is intended to advance jus(cid:9)ce and cannot be applied in a hyper-technical manner so as to perpetuate an obvious clerical error.

9. Permi4ng correc(cid:9)on of such an inadvertent mistake neither changes the nature of the suit nor causes prejudice to the defendants, par(cid:9)cularly when the date of the impugned sale deed remained unchanged in the original pleadings and throughout the li(cid:9)ga(cid:9)on. The impugned order merely enables the record to reflect the correct par(cid:9)culars of the document already in dispute between the par(cid:9)es.

10. The trial Court, therefore, exercised its procedural discre(cid:9)on to ensure accuracy of the pleadings and to avoid mul(cid:9)plicity of proceedings. Such exercise of discre(cid:9)on cannot be faulted in the absence of demonstrable prejudice or altera(cid:9)on of the substan(cid:9)ve case of the par(cid:9)es.

11. It is also well se(led that revisional jurisdic(cid:9)on is confined to jurisdic(cid:9)onal error, material irregularity, or perversity in the exercise of discre(cid:9)on. The impugned order reflects a pragma(cid:9)c and legally sound approach and does not suffer from any such infirmity warran(cid:9)ng interference.

12. Consequently, finding no merit in the present revision pe(cid:9)(cid:9)on, the same is dismissed.

February 26, 2026 Sarita (DEEPAK GUPTA)

JUDGE