JUDGMENT Rajesh Bindal J.:-Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 6.8.2007, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioners for amendment of the plaint was dismissed. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioners filed a suit for possession by pre-emption. In the plaint, the pre-emption was sought of the land bearing Khewat No. 315 Min/237, Khatoni No. 425, Rect. And Kill Nos. 26//22/1 min South (4-0), 30//5/2(5-7), 31//1 min South (2-0), 2(4-12), 41//18/1(4-16) and 24/1(4-9), total measuring 25 kanals 4 marlas, situated in the revenue estate of Village Nangal Kalan, Tehsil and District Sonepat. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that inadvertently, as against Khasra No. 47, in the plaint it was wrongly typed as Khasra No. 41. The error was not noticed earlier and for that reason, the same could not be corrected, otherwise the entire evidence in the form of sale deeds and revenue records, which has been produced by the petitioners on record, is pertaining to Khasra No. 47 only. No doubt, it can be said that it was a case of negligence on the part of the petitioners, but they cannot be made to suffer on that account for the reason that the petitioners always depended on their counsel. He further submitted that though in the written statement filed, correct khasra numbers were mentioned by the respondents, however, the same also escaped notice. It is only pleadings which are required to be corrected, otherwise the evidence pertaining to correct khasra number has already been led. Further submission is that there is no difference in any other description of the land mentioned in the suit, such khewat number, khatoni number and also the area of the land. It was merely one khasra number, which was mentioned as ‘41’ instead of ‘47’ and mere that mistake should not be considered fatal for the petitioners. Further submission is that there is no difference in any other description of the land mentioned in the suit, such khewat number, khatoni number and also the area of the land. It was merely one khasra number, which was mentioned as ‘41’ instead of ‘47’ and mere that mistake should not be considered fatal for the petitioners. Reliance has been placed upon Sodhi Singh and others v. Basant Singh and another, (1962) 64 PLR 633; Deep Chand v. Bahadur Chand, (1968) 70 PLR 416; Banta Singh and another v. Smt. Harbhajan Kaur and others, (1969) 71 PLR 862; Teja Singh and others v. Bhagwan Singh, 1970 PLJ 615; Karam Singh v.Charan Singh and another, 1971 PLJ 615; Hukam Chand and others v. Sham Lal and others, 1979 PLJ 186; Jagbir Singh and another v. Ajmer Singh, 1985 PLJ 187; Major Singh and others v. Baj Singh and others, (1996-1) 112 PLR 518; Satguru Sri Jagjit Singh Ji v. Gurjeet Singh alias Harcharan Singh and others, 2006(2) CCC 715 and Baldev Singh and others v. Manohar Singh and another, 2006(3) CCC 573. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it is not a case of mere negligence. At the very first occasion, the respondent had taken a stand in the written statement, stating that description of the land mentioned in the plaint is not correct and correct khasra numbers were mentioned. However, still no effort was made by the petitioners to get the khasra numbers corrected. Even an application for amendment of the plaint filed on an earlier occasion by the petitioners, seeking some other amendment, was dismissed. The petitioners, if aggrieved, should have taken even this part also in the application for amendment earlier filed. In fact, substantial right has accrued in favour of the respondent-defendant at this stage as in the absence of claim for pre-emption for the entire property, the suit itself would not be maintainable on account of partial pre-emption. The fresh suit would be now time barred. Accordingly, at this stage, amendment of plaint should not be permitted and there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned court below. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The fresh suit would be now time barred. Accordingly, at this stage, amendment of plaint should not be permitted and there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned court below. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. No doubt, the suit was filed by the petitioners way back in the year 2002, where while mentioning the description of the property, one of the khasra number mentioned was ‘41’. In the written filed, the respondent had mentioned that correct khasra number is ‘47’. In spite of that, no steps were taken by the petitioners to get the error corrected and the application has been filed at the stage when the suit is fixed for arguments. However, even with these facts on record, I find merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners for the reason that though in the plaint, khasra No. 41 has been mentioned. However, it contains the entire description of the property with its khewat number, khatoni number, total area and the location etc. It is also categoric stand of the petitioners that entire evidence led by them in the suit is pertaining to the correct khasra number, i.e., ‘47’ and not ‘41’. It is only for the reason that inadvertently, the mistake being only difference of two figures, i.e., ‘41’ and ‘47’, it went un-noticed. No doubt, there is lapse, but the same, in my opinion, is certainly bonafide. Mere delay in filing of the application under such circumstances cannot be held to be fatal, when the only error in typing of khasra number in the plaint is sought to be corrected and otherwise the entire evidence has been led in terms of the correct khasra number and other description of the property is correct. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned court below, the present petition is accepted. The amendment application filed by the petitioners seeking to correct khasra No. 41 to Khasra No. 47 is allowed subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs to the respondent-defendant. --------------