Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasmer Singh And Anr vs Sajjan Singh And Anr on 14 March, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037982
CR No. 2989 of 2019(O&M) 2024:PHHC:037982
-1-
121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR No. 2989 of 2019(O&M)
Date of decision :14.03.2024
Jasmer Singh and another ...Petitioners
Vs.
Sajjan Singh and another ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Ankush Singla, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate and
Mr. Sanjay Saini, Advocate
for the respondents.
***
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.(Oral)
1. The decree-holders have filed this revision petition to assail the
correctness of trial Court's order refusing to permit correction of a
typographical mistake in the prayer of the plaint, which has resulted in a
typographical error in the judgment.
2. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present case, the
relevant facts in brief are required to be noticed.
3. The plaintiffs have made some assertions in para 1 of the plaint
while filing the suit for grant of decree of possession and the para reads as
under:-
"That the plaintiffs are the owners of the land
comprising Khewat No. 102/90 Khatoni No. 138, Khasra
No. 3//11 (7-12), situated in Village Roshanpur Jhungian,
Sub Tehsil Dudhan Sadhan, District Patiala as per
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037982
CR No. 2989 of 2019(O&M) 2024:PHHC:037982
Jamabandi for the year 2006-2007 alongwith the land
comprising Khasra No. 3//12 (8-0) situated in Village
Roshanpur Jhungian, Sub Tehsil Dudhan Sadhan, District
Patiala. Copy of Jamabandi for the year 2006-2007 issued
by the Patwari Halqa is appended herewith."
4. The plaintiffs prayed for grant of decree of possession. However,
in the prayer clause, the land comprised in Khasra No. 3//12(8-0) was omitted
inadvertently. The defendant No.1 also filed a counter-claim. The defendant
No.1 in para 1 of the counter-claim pleaded as under:-
"That the defendant no.1/counter claimant is in
peaceful, continuous, uninterrupted possession of the land
bearing kh.no.3//11/7-12, and kh.no.3//12/8-0, total
measuring 15K- 12 marlas, as mentioned in the heading of
the counter claim, since May, 1978. The said land was
occupied by the defendant no.1/counter claimant, when the
same was lying vacant, and since then the defendant
no.1/counter claimant is in continuous possession of the
same."
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues
were framed by the trial Court vide order dated 16.11.2010:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of
agricultural land as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent
injunction as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD
4. Whether plaintiffs have no cause of action, to file the
present suit? OPD1
5. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the Court
with clean hands? OPD1
6. Whether the defendant no.1 in peaceful, continuous
and uninterrupted possession of land in question and
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037982
CR No. 2989 of 2019(O&M) 2024:PHHC:037982
have become owner of the same by way of adverse
possession?OPD1
7. Whether the defendant no.1/counter-claimant is in
peaceful, continuous and uninterrupted possession of
land bearing Khasra No.3//11/7-12, and
Kh.No.3//12/8-0, total measuring 15K-12 Marlas,
since 1978 and have become owner of the same by
way of adverse possession? OPD1/counter claimant
8. Relief.
6. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed whereas, the counter-
claim filed by the defendants was dismissed. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed
application under Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC') for permission to amend the claim to
correct the inadvertent typographical mistake with reference the land
comprising Rectangle No.3, Khasra No. 12(8-0), which has been dismissed by
the trial Court on the ground that after the decision of the case amendment in
the plaint is not permissible.
7. The correctness of the aforesaid order has been challenged in this
revision petition.
8. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and
with their able assistance perused the paper-book.
9. On the one hand, the learned counsel representing the petitioners
while referring to the aforesaid facts submits that the trial Court has erred in
refusing to permit the amendment. On the other hand learned counsel
representing the respondents submits that the land comprised in Rectangle
No.3, Khasra No. 12(8-0) has neither been incorporated in the caption nor in
the prayer clause of the plaint. He submits that now at this stage, the
amendment should not be permitted.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037982
CR No. 2989 of 2019(O&M) 2024:PHHC:037982
10. This Court has considered the submission of learned counsel
representing the parties. It is evident that both the parties were aware of the fact
that the suit has been filed with respect to two different Khasra numbers,
namely, Rectangle No.3, Khasra No.11(7-12) and Rectangle No.3, Khasra
No.12(8-0) as specified in para 1 of the plaint. The defendant No. 1 while filing
the counter-claim also referred to the land comprising Rectangle No. 3, Khasra
No. 12(8-0). It was specifically mentioned that the total land involved in the
present dispute is 15 kanals and 12 marlas. Moreover, the trial Court in issue
No. 7 has also referred to land comprised in Khasra No.3//11/7-12, and Khasra
No.3//12/8-0, total measuring 15 kanals and 12 marlas. Thus, it is evident that
the parties were conscious of the fact that the dispute is with respect to 15
kanals and 12 marlas land, which also includes land comprising Rectangle
No.3, Khasra No.12(8-0).
11. In these circumstances, it is safe to conclude that in the prayer
clause inadvertently the land comprised in Rectangle No.3, Khasra No.12 (8-0)
was omitted. Section 153 of the CPC enables the Court to permit the parties to
correct the typographical omissions. Section 152 of the CPC enables the Court
to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decree or orders or
from the error arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. Section 153
of the CPC enables the Court to exercise its general power to amend at any
point in time but for such application, there is only one pre-condition that such
amendment should be necessary for the purpose of determining the real
question or issues raised by the parties to the dispute.
12. In the considered opinion of the Court, the amendment sought by
the plaintiff is arising from an accidental omission and the trial Court has erred
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037982
CR No. 2989 of 2019(O&M) 2024:PHHC:037982
in dismissing the application.
13. Hence, the revision petition is allowed.
(ANIL KSHETARPAL)
14.03.2024 JUDGE
neeraj Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
5 of 5
