Order In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 9.12.2003 passed by learned Munsif, Bermo at Tenughat in Title Suit No. 49 of 2000, by which the learned court below has rejected the prayer for amendment in the written statement. 2. In the application filed on 24.11.2003, the petitioner prayed for following amendment in the written statement:- "That in 7th line of Paragraph-5 of the written statement after the word "dated" the figure "15.6.1954" be added. 3. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the said prayer has been refused on the ground of delay in filing the said amendment. Learned counsel submitted that since the date sought to be added by way of amendment has already been admitted in evidence there is no harm in allowing the amendment in the written statement. It has further been submitted that the suit was still at the stage of evidence and there was no inordinate delay. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the amendment has been sought after a long delay and that the court below has rightly rejected the prayer for amendment. 5. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel and the materials on record, I find that a very minor amendment has been sought in the written statement for addition of date in respect of sale deed, which has already been produced and marked as exhibit. It will be no surprise to the other side if the said amendment is allowed. The Court should be liberal in allowing innocuous amendment in pleading particularly in written statement. Learned Court below, without properly appreciating the legal principle, has erroneously rejected the petitioner's prayer for amendment by his impugned order. 6. For the reasons 'aforesaid, this application is allowed. 7. The order dated 9.12.2003 passed by learned Munsif. Bermo at Tenughat in Title Suit No. 49 of 2000 is hereby set aside. The amendment prayed for by the petitioner in his written statement is allowed.