JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. I.A. No. 4661/2015 1. The present application has been filed by Sultan Singh seeking impleadment as respondent in the present writ proceedings. Counsel for the parties submit that instead of deciding the present application, writ petition itself may be decided as the controversy lies in a very narrow compass. 2. Mr. Usman Gani, therefore, does not press his application, however, with the liberty to persue his application for impleadment before the Trial Court. 3. The present application seeking impleadment is, thus, dismissed as withdrawn, with a leave to the applicant to pursue his application filed before the Trial Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the issue involved in the present writ petition. 5. Subject matter of present writ petition, is the order dated 05.10.2012, passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajgarh District Churu (hereinafter referred as the Trial Court), vide which two applications filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1998 have been rejected. Necessary facts for the adjudication of the present writ petition are that the petitioner-plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking an injunction that he may not be dispossessed from the land in question, of which, he is an owner by virtue of patta dated 29.12.1986 and 19.05.1990. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of filing the suit, due to inadvertence the date of second patta had been mentioned as 19.05.1990 instead of 19.05.1992. An affidavit in evidence had also been filed by the plaintiff mentioning the date of the second patta as 19.05.1990 on the same lines. 6. On realizing that the correct date of patta is 19.05.1992 and not 19.05.1990, the plaintiff moved two applications dated 06.07.2012 first, seeking amendment in the plaint more particularly para No 'A' of the prayer while second was seeking similar correction in the affidavit to the effect that the date of second patta be corrected or read as 19.05.1992. 7. Both the applications filed by the plaintiff have been rejected by the learned Trial Court, by way of a common order dated 05.10.2012, which is under challenge in the present petition for writ. 8. Counsel for the petitioner Mr. 7. Both the applications filed by the plaintiff have been rejected by the learned Trial Court, by way of a common order dated 05.10.2012, which is under challenge in the present petition for writ. 8. Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Narpat Singh, contended that the error of mentioning year 1990 in place of 1992 was bona fide and inadvertent typographical error, which needs to be corrected. He submitted that the learned court below ought to have allowed the same in the interest of justice and ought to have permitted the plaintiff to correct the same. He argued that if the desired amendment in the plaint and affidavit are permitted to be carried out, the same would not change the nature of the suit and it would rather avoid unnecessary complexities and to serve the cause of justice. 9. Mr. Boob, learned counsel for the respondents supporting the impugned order, urged that there is no provision in Code of Civil Procedure granting permission to correct an averment made in the affidavit. He further contended that even if the date of patta is kept as 19.05.1990, the same would not have any material bearing on the subject lis or dispute inasmuch as the defendant's contention has been that the pattas in question were forged. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the material available on record. 11. On request of the Court Mr. Boob placed before the Court, for perusal, certified photocopy of the said patta, a bare look whereof reveals that the date mentioned on the pattas is illegible and it may lead to typographical error. 12. This Court is prima-facie satisfied that there was a bona fide error on the part of the plaintiff in mentioning the date of pata as 19.05.1990 instead of 19.05.1992. 13. If the bona-fide and inadvertent error by the plaintiff in mentioning the date of the patta is allowed, it would serve the cause of justice and the same will be well with in the scope and in line with the spirit of the provision contained in Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC. 14. Adverting to the second application, counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any provision of law or pronouncement permitting such amendment in the affidavit, which has been submitted in lieu of evidence. 14. Adverting to the second application, counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any provision of law or pronouncement permitting such amendment in the affidavit, which has been submitted in lieu of evidence. The averments made in the affidavit or statement given in the evidence cannot be permitted to be altered and the same are naturally required be read in consonance with the pleadings and documents available on record. 15. As such this Court finds no justifiable reason to allow similar amendment rather alteration in the affidavit. 16. As a result of the above discussion, the present writ petition is partly allowed. The application dated 07.06.2012, seeking permission to amend the plaint is allowed, the petitioner-plaintiff will be permitted to carry out the correction in the original plaint in relation to the date of second patta, in red ink. The Court will permit the requisite correction in the plaint where ever the date of second patta has been mentioned as 19.05.1990. 17. The second application seeking amendment in the affidavit, is rejected. 18. The writ petition is partly allowed and the order dated 05.10.2012 is quashed and set aside to the extent indicated above.