JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral).:- C.M.No.2438-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.609 of 2011 2. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 24.12.2010, Annexure P7, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sonepat, vide which an application, Annexure P5, filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to the ‘Code’) for amendment of the plaint filed by respondent-plaintiff was allowed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. 4. Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 27.1.2006 of land measuring 18 kanal 11 marla out of 33 kanal comprised in Khewat No.408, Khata No.628 to 632 situated within the area of village Rathdhana, Tehsil and District Sonepat was filed by respondent-plaintiff against the present petitioner-defendants. 5. Written statement was filed by the petitioner-defendants. Issues were framed and the case was fixed for evidence of respondent plaintiff. Evidence of respondent-plaintiff was closed vide order dated 19.11.2010. However, while the case was still at the stage of evidence of respondent-plaintiff, an application for amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code was filed by the respondent-plaintiff on the plea that due to typographical mistake some khasra numbers, which are mentioned in the agreement as well as in the jamabandi have not been typed in the plaint. It was allowed by learned trial Court vide impugned order subject to payment of Rs.200/- as cost. 6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-defendants that respondent-plaintiff was negligent in pursuing its case and that application for amendment was filed at much belated stage, i.e., after about three years of filing of present suit and however, learned trial Court allowed the application for amendment subject to payment of Rs.200/- only as cost, whereas respondent-plaintiff is a Company and having sufficient resources, and the petitioner-defendants are villagers and are not having sufficient income. Hence, it is contended that learned trial Court has not even properly compensated the petitioner-defendants due to utter negligent act of respondent-plaintiff. 7. Hence, it is contended that learned trial Court has not even properly compensated the petitioner-defendants due to utter negligent act of respondent-plaintiff. 7. Learned trial Court has rightly observed while passing the impugned order that the mistake is purely typographical. Description of land has not been properly described in the plaint as per the agreement to sell and jamabandi. Two killa numbers have been left out inadvertently and hence, as amendment was necessary for proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, the same was rightly allowed by learned trial Court. However, learned trial Court has erred in awarding Rs.200/- only as cost upon respondent-plaintiff while allowing the application. 8. Hence, in view of these facts, cost is enhanced to Rs.5000/- to be paid by respondent-plaintiff to petitioner-defendants as a condition precedent for allowing application filed by respondent-plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. 9. The impugned order is modified to this extent only. 10. The present revision petition is disposed of accordingly. -----------0.K.B.0------------