JUDGMENT 1. The Plaintiff in O.S. No. 1548 of 2011 on the file of the learned XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is the revision petitioner herein. The suit was originally filed as C.S. No. 1192 of 2008 before this Court and subsequently it was transferred and re-numbered as O.S. No. 1548 of 2011. The suit was filed for the relief of declaration, mandatory injunction and also for a permanent injunction morefully set out in the plaint. The suit was decreed exparte on 08.11.2012. Thereafter, a petition in I.A. No. 184 of 2012 in O.S. No. 1548 of 2012 was filed on 06.12.2012 under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC was filed by the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit seeking to set aside the exparte decree dated 08.11.2012. This application was resisted by the plaintiff by filing a counter affidavit. Thereafter, the defendants 1 and 2 have filed the instant application in I.A. No. 3 of 2013 in I.A. No. 184 of 2012 in O.S. No. 1548 of 2011 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the affidavit and petition in I.A. No. 184 of 2012 by replacing "O.S. No. 1548 of 2011" instead of "O.S. No. 1485 of 2011" in the prayer portion of the affidavit and petition. Even for this application, a counter was filed by the plaintiff praying to dismiss the application for amendment. The trial court, after considering the rival submissions and after elaborate discussion allowed I.A. No. 3 of 2013 with costs of Rs.500/-. Accordingly, the defendants 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 2 herein have paid the cost. Thereafter, the plaintiff has come forward with the present revision petition. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the amendment sought to be made by the defendants 1 and 2, after disposal of the suit, is legally not sustainable. The court below has passed the impugned order only by considering Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and not the proviso made therein. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC clearly stipulates that amendment can be permitted only before commencement of the trial. In this case, after the suit was decreed exparte, the present amendment is sought to be made and it was erroneously allowed by the trial court, therefore, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. 3. In this case, after the suit was decreed exparte, the present amendment is sought to be made and it was erroneously allowed by the trial court, therefore, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. 3. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 2 herein would contend that the amendment sought to be made is to rectify a typographical error which had crept in. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 would further contend that the suit was decreed exparte and to set aside the exparte decree, the respondents 1 and 2 have filed I.A. No. 184 of 2012 in time. Subsequently, the respondents 1 and 2 have noticed that in the prayer portion, the suit number was wrongly mentioned as "O.S. No. 1485 of 2011" instead of O.S. No. 1548 of 2011. Unless the suit number which was wrongly mentioned is corrected, the respondents 1 and 2 could not get the exparte decree set aside. Therefore, the amendment has become necessary and such amendment can be made, altered or amended at any point of time. In any event, only the exparte decree is sought to be set aside by the respondents 1 and 2 for which the proposed amendment was very much essential. The trial court, considering the nature of amendment sought to be made, in the interest of justice, has rightly allowed the application with costs of Rs.500/-. The revision petitioner also received the costs amount imposed by the court below, while so, it is not open for the plaintiff/revision petitioner to file the present Civil Revision Petition. 4. I heard the counsel for both sides and by consent of counsel for both sides, the Civil Revision Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner elaborately argued on one point namely the amendment petition has been allowed by the court below after disposal of the suit and it is legally not sustainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC which was amended in the year 2002 and argued that after 2002, any amendment can be made only before commencement of the trial. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC which was amended in the year 2002 and argued that after 2002, any amendment can be made only before commencement of the trial. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in (J. Samuel and others vs. Gattu Mahesh and others) 2012 (2) CTC 94 to contend that the amendment sought to be made after disposal of the suit is not permissible. 6. On reading of the above said decision relied on by the counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that it was a case filed for the relief of specific performance in which the pleadings with regard to readiness and willingness was omitted to be made in the plaint. Therefore, the plaintiff therein, after filing of the written statement and after commencement of trial in which parties to the suit have been examined and cross-examined, filed the petition for amendment by stating that in the plaint, the words "the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract" has been omitted and it was sought to be amended. In those circumstances, the Honourable Supreme Court found that it is a mandatory pleading to be made in a suit for specific performance and it cannot be regarded as a simple typographical error. It was further pointed out that the plaintiff was not diligent enough in seeking the amendment and such amendment sought for by the plaintiff, after commencement of trial is not maintainable. 7. In the present case, the defendants 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed an application in I.A.N o. 184 of 2012 to set aside the exparte decree dated 08.11.2012 in which the suit number was wrongly mentioned as "O.S. No. 1485 of 2011" instead of "O.S. No. 1548 of 2011". This was sought to be amended by the respondents 1 and 2. As rightly pointed out by the court below, this is a simple and pure typographical error that too misplacement in number. By allowing the application, no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff/revision petitioner herein. The amendment sought for do not alter, amend or vary the pleadings made in the written statement by the defendants 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 2 herein. By allowing the application, no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff/revision petitioner herein. The amendment sought for do not alter, amend or vary the pleadings made in the written statement by the defendants 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 2 herein. In the very same decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (J. Samuel and others vs. Gattu Mahesh and others) 2012 (2) CTC 94 the Honourable Supreme Court, in para-15 dealt with the term 'typographical error'. It was held that typographical error is a mistake made in the printed/typed material during a printing/typing process. The term includes errors due to mechanical failure or slips of the hand or finger, but usually excludes errors of ignorance. As mentioned above, in the present case, due to a human error or failure or slips of the hand or finger, the suit number was wrongly mentioned and it was sought to be corrected by filing the petition for amendment. Therefore, I am of the view that the decision relied on by the counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the case. 8. In the very same decision reported in (J. Samuel and others vs. Gattu Mahesh and others) 2012 (2) CTC 94 the Honourable Supreme Court also dealt with the power of the Court to allow application for amendment in genuine and deserving cases. In para16 of the said judgment, it was held that in deserving cases, the Court can allow delayed amendment by compensating the other side by awarding costs. It was further held that the entire object of the amendment to Order 6 Rule 17, as introduced in 2002 is to stall filing of application for amending a pleading subsequent to the commencement of trial, to avoid surprises and that the parties had sufficient knowledge of other's case. It was further held that it also helps checking the delays in filing the applications. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also relied on the decision of this Court reported in (Anthonysamy vs. Christoraj) 2013 3 Law Weekly 711 to contend that no amendment of the pleadings can be allowed after commencement of the trial. It was further contended that introduction of a new case to get rid of the admission made earlier cannot be permitted. It was further contended that introduction of a new case to get rid of the admission made earlier cannot be permitted. In order to set aside the exparte decree, an application in I.A. No. 184 of 2012 was filed in time in which the suit number was wrongly mentioned. Therefore, to rectify the mistake in mentioning the suit number, I.A. No. 3 of 2013 was filed. Therefore, it cannot be said that the amendment was sought for after commencement of trial or by such amendment, the defendants 1 and 2/ respondents 1 and 2 attempted to introduce a new case to get over the admissions already made by them. Therefore, this decision relied on by the counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts of the present case. 10. It is seen from the records that the defendants 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed I.A. No. 3 of 2013 in I.A. No. 184 of 2012 in O.S. No. 1548 of 2011 wherein in para-3 it was stated as follows:- "3. I further submit that the above application numbered as I.A. No. 184 of 2012 and posted on 02.01.2013 for counter of respondents. At that time only, we came to learn that in the prayer of the Affidavit as well as in the petition, the O.S. Number is mentioned as "O.S. No. 1485 of 2011" instead of O.S. No. 1548 of 2011. That has been typed as oversight and as a human error. That O.S. Number should be 1548 of 2011 and should not be 1485 of 2011." 11. As mentioned in para-3 of the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 3 of 2013, the defendants 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 2 herein only sought for changing the suit number which was wrongly typed. Such error had crept in due to a human oversight as well as a typographical error and it cannot be construed as a wilful omission to mention an incorrect suit number to delay or drag on the proceedings. 12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also argued that the defendants 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 2 have not exercised due diligence. Such an argument cannot be countenanced. 12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also argued that the defendants 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 2 have not exercised due diligence. Such an argument cannot be countenanced. The defendants 1 and 2/ respondents 1 and 2 herein have acted swiftly and filed the application in I.A. No. 3 of 2013 to correct the suit number, which was inadvertently and mistakenly mentioned. Therefore, the argument of the counsel for the revision petitioners that the defendants 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 2 herein have not exercised caution or due diligence is rejected. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 would contend that the application in I.A. No. 184 of 2012 was allowed with costs of Rs.500/-and it was also paid by the respondents 1 and 2 and therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition itself is not maintainable. I find force in the submission of the counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. The trial court, in order to compensate the plaintiff for the mistake committed by the respondents 1 and 2 in mentioning the incorrect suit number, allowed the petition with costs of Rs.500/-. The revision petitioner has received the costs of Rs.500/- without any demur. While so, having received the costs without any protest, it is no longer open to the revision petitioner to file the present Civil Revision Petition. 14. For all the reasons mentioned above, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order passed by the courts below. No costs. Consequently, MP No. 1 of 2013 is closed.