JUDGMENT L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral).:- Legal representatives of original defendant Radhey Lal have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 4.9.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon thereby dismissing petitioners’ application for amendment of written statement. 2. Suit was instituted by Daryao (since deceased and represented by respondents as his legal representatives) against Radhey Lal (since deceased and represented by petitioners) alleging that Radhey Lal was adopted by Kapoori on the instructions of her husband Chhajju Mal after the later’s death. In the title of the plaint, defendant Radhey Lal was described as adopted son of Chhajju Mal. In the written statement defendant Radhey Lal denied that he was adopted by Kapoori and Chhajju Mal. However, on the bottom of the written statement while mentioning name of the defendant Radhey Lal, he was described as Radhey Lal adopted son of Chhajju Mal as mentioned in the title of the plaint. Accordingly, petitioners moved application for amendment of written statement to rectify the aforesaid error and to depict defendant Radhey Lal as son of Sohan Lal. The said application has been dismissed by the trial court. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that in the body of the entire written statement alleged adoption of Radhey Lal by Chhajju Mal was vehemently and repeatedly denied but on the bottom of the written statement, Typist described Radhey Lal as adopted son of Chhajju Mal because it was so mentioned in the title of the plaint. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that even in the instant revision, petitioner no. 1 Kamla has filed her affidavits as Kamla wife of Radhey Lal son of Chhajju Mal. 6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. It is apparent that Radhey Lal in his original written statement denied his adoption by Kapoori and Chhajju Mal which was pleaded repeatedly in the written statement. However, on the bottom Radhey Lal was mentioned to be adopted son of Chhaju Mal because it was so mentioned in the title of the plaint. The error in describing Radhey Lal on the bottom of the written statement as adopted son of Chajju Mal is thus apparent. However, on the bottom Radhey Lal was mentioned to be adopted son of Chhaju Mal because it was so mentioned in the title of the plaint. The error in describing Radhey Lal on the bottom of the written statement as adopted son of Chajju Mal is thus apparent. Consequently, the petitioners are entitled to correct the said error by way of amendment although on payment of costs. 7. It may be added that the amended application was belated because both the parties had concluded their evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that they would not lead any evidence after amendment. Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure prohibiting amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial is not applicable to the instant suit which was instituted before coming into force of the said provision. 8. In view of aforesaid, impugned order dated 4.9.2009 passed by learned trial court is set aside and the petitioners are permitted to make proposed amendment in the written statement subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs. The revision petition stands allowed accordingly. ------------