ORDER 1. The matter comes up for consideration of the application (Inward No.02/22) preferred on behalf of the petitioner with a prayer for extending the ex parte interim order dated 20.12.2017 passed by this Court. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 3. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 18.11.2017, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been rejected by the Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar in Civil Suit No.59/2010. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance alleging that the petitioner has executed an agreement to sale, whereby he has agreed to sell 10 bigha of land of Murabba No.255/350 of Chak 8 PTDB, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar. It is alleged in the plaint that the respondent No.2 has received the whole consideration of Rs.60,000/-, but has refused to get the sale deed registered in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has prayed for issuing a decree for specific performance in his favour and against the respondent No.2. The written statement was filed by the respondent No.2, wherein it is contended that the agreement to sale in question is forged one. 5. After filing of the written statement by the respondent No.2, the petitioner has moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC with a prayer to allow him to amend the pleadings of the plaint. It is mentioned in the aforesaid application that due to inadvertence, the petitioner, in his plaint, has mentioned that the respondent No.2 has executed an agreement to sale for 10 bigha of land of Murabba No.255/350 of Chak 8 PTDB, but in fact, the respondent No.2 has executed an agreement to sale for the land of Chak 10 PTD and not for the land of Chak 8 PTDB. 6. The application was opposed by the respondent No.2 and the trial court has rejected the said application vide impugned order while holding that amendment in the plaint has been sought after a great delay. 7. 6. The application was opposed by the respondent No.2 and the trial court has rejected the said application vide impugned order while holding that amendment in the plaint has been sought after a great delay. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that wrong description in the sale agreement was occurred due to inadvertence and if the same is allowed to rectify, it will not change the nature of the suit and the reliefs, but the trial court has grossly erred in not allowing the petitioner to amend the pleadings of the plaint. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the writ petition. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance with the contention that the respondent No.2 has executed an agreement to sale in his favour for his agricultural lands, however later on, refused to get the sale deed registered. Along with the said suit, copy of the agreement has also been produced and from perusal of the same, it is clear that the agreement is in relation to the agricultural land situated in Chak 10 PTD, however, in the plaint, it is averred that the agreement is in relation to the land situated in Chak 8 PTDB. 11. It appears that the wrong description of the name of the village in the plaint is due to inadvertence only. Even if such amendment is allowed to be carried out, the nature of the suit will not be changed as it will remain a suit for specific performance of contract. 12. In such circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.11.2017 is set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 is also allowed. 13. The respondent No.2 is also permitted to suitably amend the pleadings in the written statement if he is advised to do so. 14. The trial court is directed to proceed with the suit expeditiously.