JUDGMENT Mr. A.N. Jindal, J.: - This order shall dispose of three Civil Revision Nos. 7548 to 7550 of 2010, titled as Karam Singh & Ors. Vs. Faquir Chand & Ors., Karam Singh & Ors. Vs. Lal Chand & Ors., and Karam Singh & Ors. Vs. Lal Chand & Ors., respectively, arising out of orders dated 11.10.2010, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guhla, declining the applications for amendment of the plaint. Common question of law and facts are involved in all the three revision petitions. Arguments heard. Record perused. 2. The amendment sought for, appears to be typographical mistake and does not give rise to any further issues. As such these amendments which occurred due to typographical mistakes cannot be declined merely on the ground of delay which could be compensated with costs. The amendments/corrections are based on the revenue record which cannot be manipulated, in any manner. 3. By way of allowing the amendment the cause and nature of the suit will not change. The Apex Court in the case of Peethani Suryanarayana & Anr. Vs. Repaka Venkata Ramana Kishore & Ors., [2009(4) Law Herald (SC) 2387] : 2009 (2) RCR (Civil) 521, while allowing the amendment observed as under:- “11. The power of the court to allow such an application for amendment of plaint is neither in doubt nor in dispute. Such a wide power on the part of the court is circumscribed by two factors, viz., (i) the application must be bona fide; (ii) the same should not cause injustice to the other side and (iii) it should not affect the right already accrued to the defendants.” 4. The instant applications also do not appear to be mala fide and also cause no prejudice to the defendants as the mistakes are only corrections of khasra numbers mentioned by the plaintiffs inadvertently. 5. The trial court having taken incorrect view of the matter, needs correction. 6. Consequently, all the three petitions are allowed subject to payment of Rs.2000/- as costs in each case.