JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners assails order dated 18.11.2016 whereby their application moved under Order 6 rule 17 read with section 151 CPC for seeking amendment in the plaint averments in paras 9, 10, 11 and 12 was not allowed by the trial court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that while the case was being prepared for final arguments, it was revealed that there are certain typographical errors in the plaint. That apart, it was also seen that while in the pleadings there is specific averment whereby the plaintiff has mentioned that she is entitled for a declaration of being owner of Plot No. 40 legally, in the prayer clause one line has been left out with regard to prayer for declaration and the word declaration has not been used. 4. He also wants an amendment in para 26 whereby he wants to add that the valuation relating to declaration of Rs. 400/- and court-fee of Rs. 30/- by way of PF is being paid, however, this line has been left in the plaint although essentially case of the petitioner-plaintiff was of possession and declaration of title on plot No. 40. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners also had moved an application for seeking certain amendments which was allowed and at that time, no such application was moved as being moved at the final stage. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the very nature of the suit would change from 'suit for possession' to 'suit for declaration as well as possession', although the plaintiffs have stated that they would not further make any attempt to lead evidence with regard to declaration, the right of defendants of submitting evidence in regard to new prayer which is sought to be made can not be denied and can not be curtailed. At the stage when proceedings evidence of both the parties is over and the matter is pending for final arguments, the application under Order 6 rule 17 CPC is wholly misconceived and merely a dilatory tactics which can not be allowed. 6. At the stage when proceedings evidence of both the parties is over and the matter is pending for final arguments, the application under Order 6 rule 17 CPC is wholly misconceived and merely a dilatory tactics which can not be allowed. 6. It is further stated that the case for possession filed by the petitioners is pending since 1994 while the defendants are in possession since then itself and they claim it by way of adverse possession whereas the petitioners are claiming possession and title on the property on the basis of hierarchy. 7. It is settled law that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are in aid for dispensation of justice. It has been held in (2005) 6 SCC 705 Rani Kusum (Smt) v. Kanchan Devi (Smt) & others: "10. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the Statute, the provisions of the CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice. 11. The mortality of justice at the hands of law troubles a Judge's conscience and points an angry interrogation at the law reformer. 12. The processual law so dominates in certain systems as to overpower substantive rights and substantial justice. The humanist rule that procedure should be the handmaid, not the mistress, of legal justice compels consideration of vesting a residuary power in judges to act ex debito justitiae where the tragic sequel otherwise would be wholly inequitable. - Justice is the goal of jurisprudence - processual, as much as substantive. (See Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar 1975 (1) SCC 774 ). 13. No person has a vested right in any course of procedure. - Justice is the goal of jurisprudence - processual, as much as substantive. (See Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar 1975 (1) SCC 774 ). 13. No person has a vested right in any course of procedure. He has only the right of prosecution or defence in the manner for the time being by or for the Court in which the case is pending, and if, by an Act of Parliament the mode of procedure is altered, he has no other right than to proceed according to the altered mode. (See Blyth v. Blyth (1966 (1) All E.R. 524 (HL). A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory, the procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be followed. (See Shreenath and Anr. v. Rajesh and Ors. AIR 1998 SC 1827 ) 14. Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice." 8. In view of the above, I find that on account typographical mistake or on account of omission on the part of counsel for adding certain words or wrongful drafting by counsel no party would be made to suffer and ends of justice would suffice if amendment is allowed as it would ultimately decide all the issues between the parties. 9. As the plaintiff has already given a statement that no further witnesses or evidence shall be put forth relating to amendment now the trial court may allow the defendants to put any evidence in support of their defence relating to the amendment as allowed herein above. The trial court is further directed to decide the matter expeditiously after recording evidence, if any, of defendants and giving him reasonable time for the said purpose. 10. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the order dated 18.11.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 6, Jodhpur Metropolitan in CO Case No. 149/2012 is set aside, the amendment prayed by petitioner-plaintiffs through application moved under Order 6 rule 17 CPC be allowed to be made in the plaint accordingly.