Monika Rani And Anr vs General Public

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Monika Rani And Anr vs General Public on 13 March, 2024

MANPREET SINGH
2024.03.14 13:38

CR-1580-2024 (O&M) 2024: PHHC:035663 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

(138) CR-1580-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 13.03.2024

Monika Rani and another ...Petitioners

Versus

General Public ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RITU TAGORE

Present: Mr. Prince Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
3 2 2
RITU TAGORE, J (ORAL)

1. Challenge in this revision petition is to order dated 05.07.2023 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ludhiana (exercising the powers of Guardian Judge) under the Guardians and Wards Act, in a case titled 'Monika Rani and another vs. General Public' registered as GA No.10 of 2022, whereby an application dated 05.05.2023 (Annexure P-3) filed under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of CPC, has been dismissed with further prayer to allow the petitioners to add khasra No./description of the property bearing No.118//2/2, 118//23 khewat No.197/188 khatauni No.208 as per jamabandi for the year 2014-15, situated in village Nurpur Bet-2, Ludhiana and share in property i.e. Khewat No.95, Khasra No.20//15, 20//16 min and Khewat No.96, Khasra No.20//16 min as per jamabandi for the year 2016-17, situated at village Malakpur, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, inadvertently and due to clerical mistake left to be incorporated in the head note, body and prayer clause of petition (Annexure P-1), and consequently to incorporate the aforesaid amendment in I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-1580-2024 (O&M) 2024: PHHC:035663 2 the order dated 12.10.2022 (Annexure P-2).

2. Given the limited scope of prayer made in this regular second appeal, issuance of notice to respondent is dispensed with.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that a petition under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 was filed against General Public, seeking to sell the share of petitioner No.2 a minor, out of the properties inherited by him upon the death of his father, Jagdeep Singh, who died intestate, as money was required for the welfare of the minor petitioner No.2. It is stated that said petition was allowed by the learned trial Court vide exparte order dated 12.10.2022 (Annexure P-2) as none from the general public appeared to oppose the application.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that the description of certain properties was inadvertently left out in the petition (Annexure P-1) due to clerical error, though total measurement and share of petitioner No.2 was correctly mentioned in the petition and revenue record (Annexures P-2 and P-3) of the properties was also placed on record.

5. Further addressing, learned counsel stated that the petitioners filed an application (Annexure P-3) under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of CPC requesting incorporation of the properties (as detailed in the application) into the head note, body as well as in the order dated 12.10.2022 (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel urged that learned trial Court dismissed the application in an unjustified manner vide order dated 05.07.2023 (Annexure P-4). It is stated that the order is perverse, arbitrary and should be set aside and petitioners be permitted to make necessary amendment as prayed for.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the paper book.

CR-1580-2024 (O&M) 2024: PHHC:035663 3

7. It is a matter of record that petitioners filed a petition under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, seeking permission to sell the share of petitioner No.2, a minor, from the properties as detailed in the petition (Annexure P-1). It is also a matter of record that said petition was allowed by learned trial Court vide order dated 12.10.2022 (Annexure P-2) on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence presented by the petitioners on record.

8. Learned trial Court while dismissing the application, concluded as under :-

"5. No doubt, the petitioner has tendered into evidence fard jamabandi for the year 2016-17 as Ex.P3, wherein, the share of minor was depicted in the Khasra No.20//15, 20//16 min and Khasra No.20//16 min as per jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 situated at Village Maiakpur, Tehsil & District Ludhiana, but the petitioner has never sought any permission to sell the share of minor in the aforesaid khasra numbers at the time of filing the petition as well as at the time of tendering her affidavit in evidence. Furthermore, the petitioner had never adduced any revenue record qua the share of minor comprised in khasra No. 118//2/2, 118//23 as per jamabandi for the year 2014-2015 situated at Village Nurpur Bet-2, Ludhiana. So, non mentioning of khasra No.118//2/2, 118//23 and khasra No. 20//15, 20//16 min and Khasra No.20//16 min in the original petition cannot be considered as a clerical mistake because when no permission was sought by the petitioner with regard to the sale of share of minor in the aforesaid khasra numbers at the time of filing the petition as well as at the time of filing her affidavit, so, no amendment can be allowed to be made by adding the aforesaid khasra numbers at this stage in the headnote as well as in the body of the petition and the judgment and order dated MANPREET SINGH 2024.03.14 13:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-1580-2024 (O&M) 2024: PHHC:035663 4 12.10.2022. It is pertinent to mention here that even the evidence beyond pleadings cannot be taken into consideration. Furthermore, in the original petition and even at the time of tendering her affidavit by the petitioner Monika Rani, she never sought any permission to sell the share of minor in the khasra numbers as mentioned in the instant application.

6. So, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that non mentioning of khasra 118//2/2 118//23 and khasra No.20//15, 20//16 min and Khasra No. 20//16 min in the original petition cannot be considered as a clerical mistake and at this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner wanted to seek permission to sell the share of the minor even in khasra No.118//2/2, 118//23 and khasra No.20//15 20//16 min and Khasra No.20//16 min at the time of filing the original petition. Accordingly, I find no merit in the application and the same stands dismissed. File be consigned to the Judicial Record Room after due compliance."

9. It is an admitted fact that neither in the petition nor in the evidence presented by the petitioners on record mentioned the properties they now intend to incorporate by way of application moved under Section 151, 152 and 153 of CPC. Section 151 CPC speaks about the inherent powers of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of the justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Section 152 CPC provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the judgment, decree or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. Section 153 CPC stipulates that the Court at any time on such terms as to cost or otherwise as it think fit, may amend any defect or error in any proceedings MANPREET SINGH 2024.03.14 13:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-1580-2024 (O&M) 2024: PHHC:035663 5 in a suit; and make all necessary amendments for the purpose of determining the real question or issue raised by or depending on such proceedings.

10. In the present facts, the case as pleaded by the petitioners does not fall in the category of inadvertent clerical mistake. It is a case where the petitioners not only in the plaint but in their testimonial accounts reiterated their prayer seeking permission to sell the properties as detailed in the petition. This suggests full and conscious knowledge on their part requesting the Court to allow them to sell the properties detailed in the petition, rather than a mere inadvertent clerical mistake or error.

11. In view of the above said discussion, it is held that learned trial Court rightly exercised the jurisdiction that vested in it while declining the prayer of the petitioners. No ground is made out to interfere in the order dated 05.07.2023 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned trial Court. Accordingly, present revision petition is dismissed being devoid of merits.

12. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

(RITU TAGORE) JUDGE March 13, 2024 Manpreet Whether speaking/reasoned --:: Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MANPREET SINGH 2024.03.14 13:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment