ORDER 1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 01.09.2021, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sarada, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') has allowed the respondents' amendment application dated 08.07.2021 to be filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the 'Code'). 2. The facts narrated briefly are, that the respondents -plaintiffs instituted a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction on 26.03.2021. 3. On 08.07.2021, the respondents - plaintiffs filed an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code and stated that due to inadvertence, they have wrongly inscribed area of the land covered by the 'patta' in question as 900 square feet whereas the correct area is 1800 square feet. 4. The application was opposed by the present petitioners (defendants No.l & 2) by way of filing a reply on 13.08.2021, inter alia, stating that the error in question cannot be said to be a bonafide error/mistake. 5. The trial Court allowed the respondents' application vide its order dated 01.09.2021. 6. Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that trial Court has committed an error of law in accepting respondents' amendment application. 7. He argued that the plaintiffs had themselves shown the area of the plot to be 900 square feet in the plaint and it cannot be said to be a bonafide error, as in the grab of seeking correction in line No.11 & 22 of page No.2 as 1800 square feet' in place of 900 square feet, they are seeking to grab more land. 8. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jodhpur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors reported in 2015 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 222 and submitted that the facts of the present case are almost identical and in light of this judgment, the amendment in question cannot be allowed. 9. Concededly, no written statement had been filed by the present petitioners (defendants), when the impugned order was passed by the trial Court. Hence, issues have not yet been framed. 10. That apart, a perusal of the plaint and the averments in the amendment application clearly reveals that the plaintiffs had sought to correct inadvertent/typographical error in line No. 11 & 22 of page No.2. Hence, issues have not yet been framed. 10. That apart, a perusal of the plaint and the averments in the amendment application clearly reveals that the plaintiffs had sought to correct inadvertent/typographical error in line No. 11 & 22 of page No.2. Such alteration is not going to change the tenor of the plaint and substance of the reliefs claimed. What the plaintiffs had sought is simply a correction/ alteration in the plaint and the same is not likely to change the nature and scope of the suit. 11. So far as judgment of this Court in the case of LIC of India (supra) is concerned, the facts therein clearly show that the case had a chequered history and the applicant therein had sought amendment in relation to measurement/area of the plot, at a much later stage, obviously after the issues were framed whereas the correction in the present case has been sought almost immediately after institution of the suit. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is, thus, clearly distinguishable. 12. The suit is at very initial stage and even the written statement was not filed by the defendants, when the application was allowed. 13. This Court does not find any error or illegality in the order dated 01.09.2021, which has been challenged by the petitioner. 14. The writ petition, therefore, fails. 15. Stay application, too, stands dismissed accordingly.