Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THIS application is at the instance of the opposite party/plaintiff/petitioner herein and is directed against the order no.73 dated July 7, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Siliguri in Misc. Case No.15 of 2000 arising out of the Title Suit No.26 of 1999 thereby allowing an application for amendment of the misc. case as well as the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The short fact is that the plaintiff/petitioner herein got an ex parte decree of declaration of title and injunction against the opposite party. Subsequently, the opposite party filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. and another petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff/petitioner is contesting the said application. Evidence was recorded on behalf of both the sides. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for hearing argument over the said misc. case. At that time, the opposite party filed an application for amendment of the said misc. case as well as the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge has allowed the prayer. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff has come up with this application.
(2.) NOW, the question is whether the order impugned can be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Advocate of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the matter of dispute is very short. The question is whether the date of decree could be changed after close of the evidence of both the sides. It is the contention of the petitioner herein that he pointed out the mistake as to the date of passing of the decree both in the misc. case and the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In spite of that, the opposite party did not correct the same. The second contention of the petitioner is that since evidence has been closed and the provisions relating to the C.P.C. are also applicable in the misc. case and so amendment could not be allowed after close of evidence on behalf of both the sides unless sufficient cause is shown. So far as the amendment is concerned, I find that it is nothing but a mere typographical mistake as to the date of passing of the decree. The actual date of passing of the decree was June 29, 1999 but it was written as June 16, 1999 and so, the petitioner of the misc. case prayed for correction of that misc. case. Since it is a mere clerical or typographical mistake, if the date is changed, the plaintiff/petitioner is not prejudiced in any manner. It is his contention also that the date of decree would be June 29, 1999, but, it was wrongly recorded as June 16, 1999.
(3.) THIS being the position, such clerical or typographical mistake could well be corrected at any time. Since the proposed amendment on the correction of clerical or typographical mistake, the amendment is most formal. The learned Trial Judge has exercised his discretionary power in allowing the said application for amendment and I think he has rightly done so. If it is not corrected, the conclusion may be wrong. The parties have to take other recourses for rectification of the defects to be corrected. So a formal amendment has been rightly allowed though it was sought for at the time of argument of the said misc. case. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that when the learned Trial Judge has exercised his discretionary power and he has set the matter at right from a wrong position, the impugned order should be supported and that it does not call for any interference at all. This application is, therefore, meritless. It is, therefore, dismissed.;