[2026:RJ-JP:2056] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20878/2025 1. Shri Mukhtayar Ahmad S/o Jumma Khan, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Plot No.e- 227, Sanjay Nagar, Bhatta Basti, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. 2. Smt. Choti Begum W/o Shri Mukhtyar Ahmad, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Plot No. E-227, Sanjay Nagar, Bhatta Basti, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. 3. Shri Ikhityar Ahmad @ Mukhtyar Hussain S/o Mukhtayar Ahmad, R/o Plot No. E-227, Sanjay Nagar, Bhatta Basti, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. 4. Smt. Firoza @ Guddi W/o Shri Amir Khan, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Plot No. E-227, Sanjay Nagar, Bhatta Basti, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. 5. Shri Amir Khan S/o Shri Abdul Salam, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Plot No. E-227, Sanjay Nagar, Bhatta Basti, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Smt. Barkat Begum W/o Shri Chotu Khan, R/o Plot No. C- 714-715, Bhatta Basti, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (Deceased During Trial). 2. Chotu Khan S/o Late Shri Rahman Khan, R/o Plot No. C- 714-715, Bhatta Basti, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (Deceased During Trial). 3. Najeer Khan S/o Late Shri Bashir Khan, Aged About 77 Years, R/o Plot No. C-713, Sanjay Nagar, Bhatta Basti, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Sharma Saraswat For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 19/01/2026 [2026:RJ-JP:2056] (2 of 3) [CW-20878/2025] 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 25.11.2025 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, whereby the application of the plaintiffs-respondents under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been allowed. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the application for amendment has been allowed after the trial has begun and as per the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, due diligence ought to have been pleaded and recorded by the Court for the purpose of permitting the amendment after the beginning of the trial. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment passed in the case of Ajendraprasadji N. Pande and Ors. vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and Ors.; 2006 (12) SCC 1 to buttress his arguments. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that, at an earlier point of time, he was permitted to make amendments on three occasions. Therefore, it cannot be said that due diligence was exercised by the plaintiff. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. This Court on perusal of the amendment application observes that the plaintiff has only sought correction in the pleadings with regard to the dates of the documents. It is not in dispute that documents were already on record and it is only the typographical errors in the plaint which were sought to be corrected and that too were only with regard to dates. Thus, the amendment which have been sought are purely in nature of typographical errors. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited [2026:RJ-JP:2056] (3 of 3) [CW-20878/2025] and Ors.; 2022 (16) SCC 1 has held that correction of dates and all those errors which are necessary to decide the suit may be permitted to be amended. It is only when if the amendment changes the nature of the suit or takes away any valuable right of the other party or if it is a withdrawal of an admission then only the amendment cannot be permitted. 6. Relying upon the judgment passed in Sanjeev Builders (supra), this Court do not find any error in the impugned order so as to call for any interference under its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the present Civil Writ Petition is dismissed. 8. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J MAHIMA/EKTA/2