ORDER : Dinesh Mehta, J. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order impugned dated 19.12.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Judicial Magistrate, Pilibanga (hereinafter to be referred as "Trial Court") whereby, petitioner's application dated 17.12.2009 seeking amendment in the plaint has been rejected by the learned Trial Court. 2. Looking to the short controversy involved in the present and with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the case at hand is being decided finally, at this stage. 3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for the present purposes are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant in the year 2009 on 22.09.2009; and in pursuance therefore, a written statement came to be filed by the defendant. Before any substantial adjudication could take place in the suit and even the issues to be framed, the plaintiff realized that certain inadvertent errors have crept while drafting the plaint. Spelling out the said errors in para-4 and para-6 of the plaint, in relation to the name of the owner of the plot and the side of the plot, an amendment application dated 17.12.2009 seeking necessary correction in the plaint came to be filed by the petitioner. It will be appropriate to reproduce the amendments sought by the plaintiff vide application under consideration:- ^^;g fd vuoku lnj ds nkok esa vkt dh rkjh[k is'kh eqdjZj gSA ;g fd oknh }kjk okn i= izLrqr djrs le; okn i= dh nQk&4 esa prqZlhek fuEu izdkj gS] esa iwoZ esa fdrk ca'khyky ntZ fd;k gqvk gS rFkk okn i= dh nQk&6 dh lkroha ykbZu esa IykV ds ckn if'pe fn'kk fy[kk gqvk gS tks fd lgou ls rFkk fn'kk Hkze gksus ds dkj.k fy[kk fn;k gS tcfd okLro esa prqZlhek esa iwoZ fdrk ca'khyky dh txg vizkFkhZ vkseizdk'k dk gS rFkk nQk 6 dh lkroha ykbZu esa IykV ds ckn if'pe fn'kk dh txg iwoZ fn'kk gS mDr fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ la'kks/ku djokdj iwoZ esa fdrk ca'khyky ds LFkku ij fdrk vkseizdk'k rFkk if'pe fn'kk dh txg iwoZ fn'kk la'kks/ku djokuk pkgrk gSA mr la'kks/ku djus ds ckn dh fLFkfr ij fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ izHkko ugha iM+sxk rFkk uk gh ckn ds U;k; fu.kZ; esa dksbZ dfBukbZ mRiUu gksxhA^^ 4. The petitioner's application seeking amendment came to be rejected by the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 19.12.2000 wherein it was observed that the petitioner-plaintiff should be conscious and aware of the particulars of his property. The learned Trial Court also went on to observe that how could the plaintiff mention incorrect sides of the plot, which, according to it, was both shocking and ridiculous. 5. Mr. Sidhu, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, assailing the order impugned dated 19.12.2009 submitted that the same is neither in conformity with the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure nor can the reasons given by the learned Trial Court be approved. He submitted that the amendment sought by the plaintiff was only with a view to correct inadvertent errors in the plaint, which too, was sought at the very initial of the proceedings, within a period of three months of filing of the suit. He added that neither the nature of the suit nor the framework thereof would be altered on account of the amendments sought. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent-defendant, vehemently opposed the contentions raised by Mr. Sidhu and submitted that the amendments sought, if allowed, it would change the nature of the suit and the contentious plot/land would be changed. 7. Having heard the rival contentions and after perusal of the material on record, including the amendment application dated 17.12.2009 and reply thereof, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court has committed a manifest error in rejecting petitioner's application seeking amendment. The reasons ascribed by the learned Trial Court are absolutely irrelevant for deciding an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. A look at the amendment application leaves no room for ambiguity that the same was filed by the petitioner only with a view to cure inadvertent defects or lacunae crept in the plaint. The amendments, as sought by the plaintiff, are necessary and relate to correct identity of the contentious property. The application for amendment had been filed at the threshold of the proceedings, when issues had not been framed. The amendment in question would serve the cause of justice and its rejection would retard it. 9. The amendments, as sought by the plaintiff, are necessary and relate to correct identity of the contentious property. The application for amendment had been filed at the threshold of the proceedings, when issues had not been framed. The amendment in question would serve the cause of justice and its rejection would retard it. 9. The learned Trial Court ought to have adopted justice oriented and objective approach, in exercise of its discretion conferred upon the Court, under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code. The approach, as adopted by the learned Court below and the order impugned fail to clear the test of reasonableness in exercise of discretion and the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, in relation to the adjudication of amendment application, under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The reasoning given there under cannot be countenanced. 10. To sum up, the order impugned dated 19.12.2009 is contrary to the facts and law involved in the present case, and liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, set aside. 11. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The amendment application dated 17.12.2009 filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed. The plaintiff shall be allowed to carry out the amendment sought in his application. Needless it is to observe that the defendant shall also be entitled to file amended written statement, pursuant to such amended plaint. 12. Petition allowed, no order as to costs.