JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.: - At the time of filing of the suit, description of land in litigation was given taking details from the Jamabandi of the said land. While incorporating the details of the land, instead of mentioning Khasra No.70/14/4 (0-5), it was incorrectly mentioned as 71/14/1 (0-5) in the heading of the plaint. Similarly, Khasra No.71/21/1/1 (1-15) mentioned in the Jamabandi, was inadvertently typed on second page of the plaint as 71/21/1 (1-15). This typographical error continued to be mentioned wherever mention of such details of the land came. 2. When the matter of such mistakes came to the notice of the plaintiff, an application for amendment of the plaint was made to rectify the typographical mistakes claiming that these were inadvertent and innocuous mistakes which were not going to affect or prejudice the opposite party. 3. The learned lower court disagreeing with the applicant-plaintiff, petitioner herein, dismissed the application for amendment of the plaint holding that the suit was at the final stage and was likely to bring change in nature of the suit as also in the content of litigation. 4. No notice to the opposite side is being issued to avoid delay and further because no prejudice would be caused to the other party. 5. Giving description of the land in the plaint from the concerned Jamabandi, some typographical errors crept in the plaint and were sought to be corrected when these came to the notice of the petitioner-plaintiff. Observations of the learned lower court that such amendment in the plaint would change nature of the suit as also in the content of litigation, is misfounded. 6. Stage of the proceedings becomes inconsequential because it is such an amendment without carrying out of which, the adjudication between the parties cannot be made completely, effectively, efficiently and wholesomely. 7. In Satguru Sri Jajit Singh Ji Versus Gurjeet Singh alias Harcharan Singh and others [2006(1) Law Herald (P&H) 582] : 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 71 (P&H), a co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed amendment of the plaint when it was sought after twenty years and it was specifically mentioned that omission was not such by which the plaintiff was to gain anything. In fact, even in the cited authority, Khasra numbers of the suit land had typographically been mentioned wrongly in the plaint and amendment has been sought to reproduce correct Khasra numbers. 8. In fact, even in the cited authority, Khasra numbers of the suit land had typographically been mentioned wrongly in the plaint and amendment has been sought to reproduce correct Khasra numbers. 8. It is clear that the petitioner-plaintiff is not going to gain anything by delayed filing of this application for amendment of the plaint to bring in correct particulars of the land in litigation where wrong description has come because of inadvertent typographical error. So far as delay is concerned, the other party can very well be compensated in terms of costs. 9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, setting aside the impugned order dated 16.9.2014 passed by the lower court, this petition is accepted and the application for amendment of the plaint is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the opposite party. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————