JUDGMENT : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. Seeking quashing of order dated 21.06.2014 in Title Suit No.59 of 2002 whereby, application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been dismissed, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner is plaintiff in Title Suit No.59 of 2002. In the pending suit, an application for incorporating the following amendments was filed; (i) That at page no.7 in para 8 in 4th line after the word area digit “0.17” be deleted and in its place “0.14” be inserted. Likewise in 5th line of para 8 area of plot no. 7568 after the word area digit No. “0.14” be deleted and in its place digit “0.17” be inserted. (ii) That likewise at page no. 8 in para 09 of the plaint in 9th line in area of plot no. 7569 after the word area digit “0.14” be deleted and in its place digit “0.05” be inserted. (iii) That at page no. 13 in para 14 in 5th line after the digit and word deed no.3771 dated the digit “1410199” be deleted and in its place digit “23.07.1999” be inserted. (iv) That at page no.14 in para 14 in 5th line after the word “dated” digit “25” be deleted and in its place digit “15” be inserted. (v) That at page 19 in relief no. (B) in first line after the word that “vacant” be deleted. (vi) That at page no. 19 in relief no. (C) in first line after the word dated digit “14.10.1999” be deleted and in its place digit “23.07.1999” be inserted. (vii) That at page no. 20 in schedule of the suit land plot no. 7568 be deleted and in its place plot no. 7567 be inserted. Further area after the word “out of ” digit “0.17” be deleted and in its place digit “0.14” be inserted. Likewise after the digit 3771 and word “dated” digit “14.10.1999” be deleted and in its place digits “23.07.1999” be inserted”. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a copy of sale-deed dated 18.11.2002 and deed no.3771 dated 14.10.1999 are on record and the said documents would disclose that the descriptions of the sale-deed were, inadvertently, incorrectly mentioned in the plaint and therefore, if the proposed amendments are allowed, it would not cause any prejudice to the defendants. 4. I find that application dated 15.04.2014 was filed after the parties closed their evidence. 4. I find that application dated 15.04.2014 was filed after the parties closed their evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioners admits that sale-deed dated 18.11.2002 has been marked as exhibit 1/C. It is thus apparent that the witnesses examined by the plaintiff would have spoken about the correct description of exhibit 1/C. However, if the plaintiff’s witnesses have not given correct details of the sale-deed, by amendment in the plaint, such description of the document cannot be changed. The description given in the plaint may be of a different document and this possibility cannot be ruled out. The petitioner by amendment cannot be permitted to change the description of a document, as averred in the plaint, to match with the description of a deed brought on record if the alleged discrepancy has not been clarified through oral evidence. 5. Considering the above facts, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. 6. Let a copy of the order be sent to the concerned court through FAX. Petition dismissed.