ORDER : The instant Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been maintained by the petitioner-defendant No.1 against the impugned order dated 6.2.2019, passed by the learned Trial Court, in RBT No.755/14/10, whereby an application, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, for amendment of the written statement has been dismissed and with a prayer to set aside the impugned order. 2. The key facts giving rise to the present petition are that plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 herein maintained a suit for possession against the petitioner-defendant No.1. When the matter was listed for final arguments, it noticed that there are clerical and typographical mistakes in para-5 of the written statement claiming adverse possession, even otherwise also, defendant No.1 never intended to claim adverse possession, as even in para-1 of the written statement, defendant No.1 clearly stated that Shri Bansi Lal son of Shri Mohan, was in possession of the suit land and he became owner by way of adverse possession. Defendant No.1 cannot claim adverse possession and words, as have come in para-5, with respect to claiming adverse possession by him, sought to be amended. Similarly, in para-5, in fourth line of the written statement, words “the defendants” were sought to be replaced with words “Shri Khushia”. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the impugned order, dated 6.2.2019, passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner maintained the present revision petition. 4. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that words “the defendants” in para-5 of the written statement in fourth line, has occurred due to the typographical mistake and the same was required to be amended, as being deleted. He argued that case of the petitioner-defendant No.1 is that a person, namely, Shri Bansi Lal, was in adverse possession of the suit land, since the year 1957 and after he perfected his title, land was partitioned between the co-sharer and one of his successor Shri Khushia, inducted defendant, as a tenant on the suit land and inadvertently due to the typographical mistake words “the defendants”, as mentioned, in para-5 of the written statement in fourth line of the written statement is required to be amended. He has further argued that the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order without application of mind and the same is required to be set aside to meet the ends of justice. 5. He has further argued that the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order without application of mind and the same is required to be set aside to meet the ends of justice. 5. After hearing learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, going through the records and pleadings of the parties, which have come on record, this Court finds that the amendment as sought for was required to be allowed for the simple reason that it is in the interest of justice and was only for correction of typographical mistake. This Court is of the considered view that if the amendment is allowed, respondents-plaintiffs will not suffer any loss or prejudice and the same cannot be said to be in any way hampering the dispensation of justice. The view taken by the learned Trial Court is that the amendment cannot be allowed, as it was made after eight years and the same is not required to be allowed. As the amendment was necessitated, which is clear from the pleadings of the parties that their case from the very beginning was that the landlord of the defendant has become owner by way of adverse possession, as he was in adverse possession of the suit land, since the year 1957 continuously without any interruption and after his title in ownership, the land was given to the present defendant on tenancy. The possession of the defendant, as a tenant from such a long time and after coming into operation of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, the present proceedings cannot be just closed for the simple reason on account of the delay, in moving the application. The ultimate object for dispensation of justice is that parties should get justice and cases should not be heard on technical ground. 6. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Trial Court is not rightly taken the view and so, the application for amendment is required to be allowed. Accordingly, the amendment as sought for, is required to be allowed. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Petitioner to appear before the learned Trial Court on 9th November, 2021, either in person or through his learned Advocates. 7. Accordingly, the amendment as sought for, is required to be allowed. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Petitioner to appear before the learned Trial Court on 9th November, 2021, either in person or through his learned Advocates. 7. In view of the above, the instant petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. No order as to costs. Record of the learned Court below be sent back immediately.