Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.: - Notice on behalf of the opposite parties has been accepted by Ms. Jyotesna Pal, Advocate. With the consent of parties' counsel the writ petition is being decided at the admission stage. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.3.2011 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow in Case No. OA/11/U/600/09. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the husband of the petitioner no. 1 had died in a railway accident on 03.6.2009. The claim petition has been filed before the Railway Claim Tribunal in which inadvertently due to clerical mistake the date of accident was mentioned as 04.6.2009. The applicant after coming to know about the said clerical mistake, moved an application for amendment dated 28.1.2011. The said application is on record as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. Submission of the petitioner's counsel is that the learned Tribunal has rejected the application of the petitioner, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, solely on the ground that since the evidence in the case has been led and Smt. Sarla has appeared in cross-examination, therefore, the application is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there cannot be any hard and fast rules that the amendment application cannot be moved when the evidence has been led and the trial has begun. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Preethani Suryanarayana & Anr. Vs. Repaka Venkata Ramana Kishore & Ors; AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2141, wherein the amendment application was moved in the decree and amendment was sought on the basis of clerical mistake. Learned counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand submitted that in view of the Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the amendment application after the commencement of the trial is not maintainable. I have considered various submissions made by the parties' counsel. The perusal of the amendment application clearly indicates that the petitioner had specifically mentioned that due to the clerical mistake, the date of train accident was wrongly mentioned as 04.6.2009 instead of 03.6.2009. The said mistake was not deliberate and due to typographical error. I have considered various submissions made by the parties' counsel. The perusal of the amendment application clearly indicates that the petitioner had specifically mentioned that due to the clerical mistake, the date of train accident was wrongly mentioned as 04.6.2009 instead of 03.6.2009. The said mistake was not deliberate and due to typographical error. The learned Tribunal without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and especially the intention of the petitioner in seeking the said amendment has rejected the application. In case, some wrong date was mentioned in the OA due to typographical error, the amendment application seeking correction of the date cannot be rejected simply on the ground that since the evidence has been led and the application is not maintainable. Learned Tribunal should have considered the said application on the facts and circumstances of the case concerned. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the order impugned dated 24.3.2011 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and it is hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed.