Judgment U.N.Sinha, J. 1. This application has been filed by some of the defendants of Title Suit No. 82 of 1965 pending in the court of the First Munsif, Begusarai, and it is directed against an order passed by the learned Munsif on the 3rd May, 1967 allowing the plaintiffs prayer for making certain amendments in his plaint. 2. It is contended that the amendment matter arising out of a long petition filed by the plaintiff, to which objections were taken by a petition of rejoinder by the contesting defendants has been disposed of by the learned Munsif in about three lines by stating only that he has heard the parties and the amendments will be allowed on payment of Rs. 30 as costs. It is contended that the learned Munsif has not applied his mind to the facts of the case and to the questions, which he was bound to consider under Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and although the course adopted by the learned Munsif in disposing of this amendment matter cannot be approved, there is no necessity for interference as the proposed amendments did not really change the controversy between the parties and, as a matter of fact, these amendments were quite necessary for determining the real questions agitated by the parties. In future, the learned Munsif should realise that such matters are governed by Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure and that it is the duty of the court to consider the in gredients of Rule 17 of the Order before the amendments of pleadings are allowed. 3. I shall now deal with the amendments proposed by the plaintiff and indicate that the actual order of the learned Munsif allowing the amendments to be made in the plaint was a correct one although he has not Riven any reasons for his conclusions. The proposed amendments are to be found in paragraph 3 of the petition for amendment of the plaint filed by the plaintiff. Sub-paragraph (A) of that paragraph asked for some corrections to be made in certain dates mentioned in paragraphs 4, 18, 20 and 29A of the plaint. The proposed amendments are to be found in paragraph 3 of the petition for amendment of the plaint filed by the plaintiff. Sub-paragraph (A) of that paragraph asked for some corrections to be made in certain dates mentioned in paragraphs 4, 18, 20 and 29A of the plaint. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party has stated that these dates, except the year of 1311 Fasli, will be borne out by documentary evidence which will be filed in due course. For instance, in paragraph 4 of the plaint, the date of a registered mortgage bond was mentioned as 15th April, 1911. The prayer now is that this date should be changed to 16th May, 1911. It is stated that the registered mortgage bond was really executed on the 15th May, 1911 and not on the 15th April, 1911 and the latter date was mentioned by mistake and it will appear later on that this document was executed on the 15th May, 1911 and registered on the 16th May, 1911. Then, in paragraph 18 of the plaint, a year was mentioned as 1311 Fasli. It is stated that this was an obvious typing mistake for 1911, A. D. because the mortgage bond Itself came into existence in 1911- Haying heard learned counsel for the parties I think the amendments proposed in sub-paragraph (A) of paragraph 3 of the petition for amendment of plaint really arise out of mistakes in typing or otherwise and, therefore, these amendments should be allowed. 4. In sub-paragraph (B) of paragraph 3 the proposed amendment is for striking out a few words in paragraph 9 of the original plaint. As paragraph 9 of the original plaint reads, Saini Yadav and Basudeo Yadav are said to have purchased certain properties from certain persons including one Bhakoran Yadav, son of Mosst. Dhania. It is now stated that this is a mistake as the real vendor was Mosst, Dhania and not Bhakoran Yadav. That is to say, the sale to Saini Yadav and Basudeo Yadav was made by Mosst. Dhania and others. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party states that he has a certified copy of this document in his hand showing the real state of affairs and it will be filed in the suit in due course. In the circumstances, I think, this amendment should also be allowed. 5. Dhania and others. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party states that he has a certified copy of this document in his hand showing the real state of affairs and it will be filed in the suit in due course. In the circumstances, I think, this amendment should also be allowed. 5. Coming to sub-paragraphs (C) and (D) of paragraph 3 it appears that the plaintiff now proposes to state that Saini Yadav and Basudev Yadav had purchased in Benami of certain persons whereas this Benami purchase matter had not been mentioned in original paragraph 9 of the plaint. I think this amendment is also necessary for clarifying the stand taken by the plaintiff and it cannot be said to cause any change in the original stand taken by him. 6. The amendment proposed in sub-paragraph (E) of paragraph 3 has been objected to by the petitioners in this Court on the ground that a fresh paragraph no. 13A has been proposed by the plaintiff whereas the matter covered by this proposed paragraph had not been mentioned at all in the original plaint. It now appears from the pleadings of the parties that the proposed paragraph 13A was really left out in the original plaint filed in the Court by some mistake, because the written statement of defendants Nos. 1, 3, 5, 14 to 17,19,20,27 and 28 has mentioned in paragraph 22 that the statements made in paragraph 13A of the plaint are not admitted and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the assertions. In paragraph 21 of the same written statement reference to paragraph 13 has been made and so there was no confusion between paragraph 13 and paragraph 13A. Therefore, this amendment should also be allowed. 7. The amendment proposed in sub-paragraph (F) is apparently to correct a typing mistake in paragraph 15 of the original plaint. What the plaintiff now proposes to do is to correct the figure "1600" to "600" and there cannot be any objection to this amendment. 8. What has been proposed in sub-paragraph (G) of paragraph 3 is splitting up of paragraph 15 of the plaint into paragraphs 15 and 16 and then to make certain necessary corrections in new paragraph 16. This splitting up of paragraph 15 into two paragraphs is wholly without objection and as a matter of fact, this may simplify the various statements of fact. This splitting up of paragraph 15 into two paragraphs is wholly without objection and as a matter of fact, this may simplify the various statements of fact. An amendment in new paragraph 16 has become necessary; because the plaintiff now wishes to state that after the institution of the suit on the 12th July, 1965 the plaintiff had purchased certain outstanding interest in certain properties on the 26th July, 1965. That is to say, the plaintiff had originally stated that there was an outstanding interest in defendant second party, whereas now he proposes to state that he had purchased the interest after the institution of the suit. In my opinion, there cannot be any objection to this amendment also. This amendment necessarily leads to the proposed amendment in paragraph 20 of the plaint. After the plaintiff has purchased the outstanding interest from defendant second party, he became the sole mortgagor and, therefore, the amendment in paragraph 20 must consequently be allowed. 9. In the result, it appears that on a due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the amendments have been rightly allowed by the learned Munsif and, therefore, there is no need for interference. It is stated by learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party that having gone through the plaint carefully, he has ascertained that there may still be some mistakes in dates in paragraphs 14, 17 and elsewhere, which will require correction later on. If the plaintiff applies to the trial Court for necessary corrections in the plaint. I have no doubt that the learned Munsif will consider the matter carefully and decide in accordance with law. 10. In the result the civil revision application fails and it is dismissed; but there will be no order for costs.