ORDER Heard learned counsel Mr. Neeraj Kumar appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel Mr. Amarnath Jha appearing on behalf of defendants-respondent nos.3 and 4 as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner against the order dated 19.07.2013 passed in Title Suit No.144 of 2006 by the learned Subordinate Judge-III, Saharsa whereby the learned court below allowed the amendment application in the written statement. 3. The learned counsel Mr. Neeraj Kumar appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that after commencement of trial when the plaintiff has started evidence, the defendants filed the amendment application on the ground that because of typing mistake of the typist certain facts have been left and, therefore, the amendment be allowed. The learned counsel further submitted that after the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure the courts have no jurisdiction to allow amendment after commencement of trial unless the courts record a finding that after due diligence the fact was not within the knowledge of the parties seeking amendment but the learned court below without considering this proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has allowed the application for amendment in the written statement. 4. The learned counsel Mr. Amarnath Jha appearing on behalf of the defendants-respondent nos.3 and 4 submitted that since amendment sought for is clarification in nature, therefore, the court below has rightly allowed the amendment application. 5. Admittedly, according to the parties the hearing of the case has already commenced. It further appears that ten witnesses have already been examined by the plaintiff. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the court below has not at all considered the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also has not considered as to whether the amendment sought for in the written statement is at all necessary for the effectual decision of the controversy between the parties. From perusal of the amendment application, it appears that one paragraph has been sought for to be added in the written statement. 7. In the case of J. Samuel and Ors. Vs. From perusal of the amendment application, it appears that one paragraph has been sought for to be added in the written statement. 7. In the case of J. Samuel and Ors. Vs. Gattu Mahesh and Ors., reported in 2012(1) P.L.J.R. 412 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that lack of ‘due diligence’ and mistake committed does not come within the purview of a typographical error. The term ‘typographical error’ is defined as a mistake made in printed/typed materials during a printing/typing process. It includes errors due to mechanical failure or slips of the hand or finger, but usually excludes errors of ignorance, act of negligence to perform an action which one has an obligation to do cannot be called as a typographical error. In view of the above settled propositions of law the amendment sought for cannot be termed as a typing mistake. However, the learned court has not at all considered the proviso and has also not considered the fact as to whether this amendment is necessary for the real controversy between the parties or not. 8. In the result, this writ application is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the court below for passing a fresh order after hearing the parties on the amendment application, according to law.