JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff no. 1 in the Title Suit No. 138 of 2003, is aggrieved of order dated 26.11.2016 by which the application for amendment in the plaint has been declined. 2. Briefly stated, Title Suit No. 138 of 2003 has been instituted for a decree for declaration of the plaintiffs' raiyati, kayami rights, title and interest over the suit schedule properties and for a decree for declaration of confirmation of possession over the suit land and, in the alternative, if the plaintiffs are found dispossessed from the suit properties during pendency of the suit for delivery of khas possession to them through the process of the Court. During the trial, after the parties led their evidence and the suit was posted for final hearings, an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed on 11.08.2016 for the following amendments in the plaint: “1. That, figure “686” appearing in last but one line appearing in para 5 of the plaint be deleted and in its place figure “06-06-86” be added to be written. 2. That following relief be added as relief no. (iii) under para 18 of the plaint and existing reliefs No. iii and iv be renumbered. “(iii) That on adjudication it be declared that compromise petition filed by defendants in S.T. No. 122 of 1990 State versus Mahabir Rana and others in the Court of Sri Shiv Shankar Mishra, Additional Session Judge, Giridih and in Case No. 1109/89 Bhatu Rana and others versus Tulsi Tewari and others u/s 145 CR.P.C. in the court of Sri S. Tewari, Executive Magistrate, Giridih are forged, fabricated, tainted with fraued and same are not binding on plaintiffs.” 3. That, part of sentences “who by committing forgery to file” appearing in 4th line till last line appearing in para 13 at page 8 of the plaint be deleted and in its place “who in fact filed forged compromise petition purported to be signed by Tulsi Tewari and his other brother in S.T. No. 122/90 State Versus Mahabir Rana and in Case No. 1109/89 U/s 145 Cr.P.C. Bhatu Rana and others Versus Tulsi Tewari and others” be allowed to be written. 4. That following para 14.A be allowed to be written after para 14 of the plaint. “14. 4. That following para 14.A be allowed to be written after para 14 of the plaint. “14. A. That a revenue proceeding was initiated between parties before Anchal Adhikari, Birni for cancellation of zamabandi created in the name of defendants in Register-II which was decided against defendants and same was confirmed by L.R.D.C., Giridih in Misc. Case No. 30/2004-05, L.R. Case No. 25/05-06.” 3. A bare perusal of the plaint averments and the proposed amendments in paragraph nos. 2 to 4 would disclose that now the plaintiffs intend to set-up a new case. This has to be kept in mind that the defendants have raised a counter-claim to which the plaintiffs have filed their written statement and, therefore, the plaintiffs cannot claim inadvertance and any amendment in the plaint would affect the counter-claim also. Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits the parties to amend the pleadings at any stage, however, in the facts in this case, as noticed hereinabove, without disclosing a probable reason for not incorporating the proposed amendments in the plaint at the initial stage, at the fag end of the suit the plaintiffs have rightly not been permitted to amend the plaint in so far as paragraph nos. 2 to 4 are concerned, however, in so far as the typographical error in paragraph no. 5 in the plaint is concerned in view of the stand taken by the defendants in paragraph no. 12 of their written statement, the aforesaid typographical error must be permitted to be corrected. 4. Accordingly, considering that the proposed amendment in paragraph no. 1 of the application dated 11.08.2016 is a simple clerical mistake, I am not inclined to issue notice to the respondents to file their objection and it is hereby clarified that the typographical mistake in paragraph no. 5 of the plaint where date “06.06.86” has been typed as “686” shall be read as “06.06.86”. 5. With the aforesaid clarification, the writ petition stands disposed of.