JUDGMENT M.P. Singh, J. - The present petition is directed against an order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad camp at Fatehpur dated 29-2-1988 allowing the amendment of the objection filed by the respondent No. 2 and remanding the case to the Consolidation Officer to decide the case afresh on merits. 2. Respondent No. 2 filed an objection under Section 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which was barred by limitation. The Consolidation Officer by an order dated 5-10-1985 dismissed the same. The appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed but the Revision filed against the appellate order was allowed on 30-9-1986 and the case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer for decision afresh on merits. After the order of remand was passed an application in the form of additional objection for amendment of the objection was filed by the respondent No. 2. It has been stated that on account of clerical mistake plot No. 127 was mentioned. Actually in its place plots No. 112, 124, 177, 178, and 210 should have been mentioned. 3. The Consolidation Officer rejected the amendment application by an order dated 16-5-1987. Against this order the respondent No. 2 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation as well as a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The appeal is still pending and the revision has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 29-2-1988 holding that it was just a typing omission that plot no 127 was mentioned in the objection filed under Section 9-A (2) of the Act by the respondent No. 2 in place of plots No. 112, 124, 177, 178 and 210. 4. Heard Sri Rajendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners who has submitted that since a valuable right has accrued in favour of the petitioners, no such amendment could have been allowed. I do not agree with this contention. The delay in filing the objection had already been condoned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The only controversy is whether in place of plot No. 127 the correct plots number have rightly been permitted to be added or not, I see no justification in rejecting the prayer made by the respondent No. 2 for correction of clerical mistake. 5. The delay in filing the objection had already been condoned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The only controversy is whether in place of plot No. 127 the correct plots number have rightly been permitted to be added or not, I see no justification in rejecting the prayer made by the respondent No. 2 for correction of clerical mistake. 5. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Swaroop and others v. Mool Chand and others, (AIR 1983 Supreme Court 355) that: ".........the laws of procedure are devised for advancing justice and not impeding the same. Code of procedure is designed to facilitate justice and further its ends : not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties : not a thing designed to trip people up." 6. The objection of the petitioner is highly technical and if allowed to sustain, it will lead to injustice to the respondent No. 2 who should not be allowed to suffer on account of mistake committed by his counsel or clerk. The application for amendment has been rightly allowed. 7. I find no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly rejected.