JUDGMENT
S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. By way of this writ petition, petitioner challenges the order dated 1.5.2001 passed by District Judge dismissing revision preferred against the order dated 18.1.2001 passed by Trial Court rejecting amendment application.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the opposite parties.
3. Facts borne out from the record are that plaintiff filed a Suit No. 395 of 1978 for possession of land In dispute, for demolition and for permanent injunction restraining defendant from interfering in possession of petitioner’s house.
4. It appears from the record that in paragraph 6 of the plaint, averments are that the plaintiff purchased the land in suit from Smt. Fatma through sale deed dated 15.5.1978. Thereafter defendant forcibly and illegally took possession of a portion of land in suit. By way of amendment petitioner wanted to amend one word in plaint by substituting year 1978 in place of 1977 on the ground that by clerical error, Instead of 1978, 1977 was written. Amendment application was rejected by courts below. These orders are impugned in the present writ petition.
5. From perusal of record, it clearly transpires that plaintiff in the plaint stated that possession was taken after execution of sale deed and as such fact stated In the amendment application that by clerical error/ slip of pen instead of 1978, 1977 was written appears to be correct. In view of the fact cause of action mentioned in plaint arose after Execution of sale deed i.e. 1978. Thus courts below wrongly rejected amendment application on the ground of delay only.
6. Law Is well settled that in case serious prejudice is not caused to other side by amendment, delay will not come in the way to get justice. Parties approach the Court to ventilate /redressal of their grievance on merit, as such technicality should not come in the way to render justice to the parties. In the present case, plaint itself made it clear that the cause of action arose after execution of sale deed. 1977 written in plaint appears to be a clerical error.
7. This Court is of the view that the order passed by courts below taking too technical view for rejecting amendment application particularly defendant will not be prejudiced, if amendment is allowed. The case law cited by the parties Baldev Singh and Ors. v. Manohar Singh and Anr. and 2003 (94) 148 (SC) Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and Anr. fully supports my view.
8. Thus this Court Is of the view that impugned orders suffer from error of law apparent on the face of record and amendment in the plaint of petitioner deserves to be allowed.
9. Writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned orders 1.5.2001 and 18.1.2001 are quashed. Amendment prayed for in the plaint is allowed which shall be made within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The suit shall also proceed expeditiously and shall be decided as early as possible but not beyond one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.