Order In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 9.1.2003 passed by learned 5th Additional District & Sessions, Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in Title Appeal No. 52 of 1998, whereby the plaintiff-petitioner's application for inserting few words, which could not be incorporated in amended paragraph-1 (A) of the plaint, has been rejected on the ground that the prayer was made belatedly. 2. It has been observed that according to the amended provision of Section 148 C.P.C. time exceeding 30 days cannot be granted for any purpose. 3. Notice was issued to the respondent. He has appeared but has not filed any counter affidavit. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the court below has rejected the application in view of the amended provision of Section 148 C.P.C., but the same is not applicable in the instant case. The prayer was made for amendment in the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. Learned counsel submitted that the suit is of the year 1996 and the amended provision has got no application in the instant case. Learned court below has erroneously rejected the petitioner's application on the said ground. 5. Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the order of the learned court below is sound and legal. The amendment prayed for by the plaintiff petitioner was allowed, but he did not deliberately correct few words in order to linger the case and put the defendant to unnecessary harassment. Learned counsel further submitted that the court below has rightly rejected the said belated prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that the suit is of the year 1996. The plaintiff-petitioner has sought to incorporate the amendment already allowed under the provision of Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. The amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 which has also amended the said Section 148 C.P.C. has got no application in the instant case in view of the provision of Section 16(ii)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002. The court below has erroneously rejected the petitioner's application on the ground of amendment in Section 148 C.P.C. By the said application, the plaintiff-petitioner has prayed for permission to incorporate a few words, which were inadvertently missed in the amended portion of paragraph-1 (A) of the plaint, which was earlier allowed by the court itself by order dated 26.2.1998, the prayer for insertion was confined to the words "by metes and bound and in the said partition Plot No. 1260." The omission apparently appears to be due to sheer inadvertence and the learned court below has adopted a pedantic and mechanical approach in rejecting the said prayer of the plaintiff -petitioner. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of the learned court below cannot sustain and is, hereby, quashed. This application is allowed. The petitioner's prayer made in the court below is also allowed and he is permitted to incorporate the amendment in the plaint, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.