JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.1.2008 whereby the application of the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment in the suit has been rejected on the ground that in para Nos. 7 and 10, the fact of 'opening' the way has been mentioned by inadvertence whereas it was 'declaration'. 2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that his application has been rejected by the trial Court on the ground that it will substantially change the nature of the suit whereas the amendment was of minor nature. He further submits that the petitioner does not want to produce any evidence on the said issue. 3. The counsel for the respondents submits that the case is going on for final argument before the trial Court and the amendment will change the nature of the suit, therefore, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. 4. I have gone through the record of the writ petition and also considered the rival submissions of the parties. 5. In my view, there appears to be a bona fide mistake in para Nos. 7 and 10 where instead of 'declaration, the fact of 'opening' of way has been mentioned, therefore, the trial Court has wrongly rejected the application on the ground that substantial change in the nature of suit and the application is rejected at this stage. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 30.1.2008 is quashed and the amendment application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff is allowed with a further direction to the trial Court to decide the civil suit within a period of two months.Writ petition allowed. *******