M. SURESH KOTHARI S/O. MR. MANGILAI KOTHARI AND MITTAN LAL JAIN S/O. LATE RAMA LAL JAIN Vs. MR. HARIRAM THAKKAR S/O. LATE LAKSHMI THAKKAR, MR. PIYUSH PERIWAL S/O. SRI. MADAN LAL PERIWAL, MR. DILIP KR. KHATAI S/O. LATE RAJAN KAHTAI AND GAJANAND M

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH these matters are posted in the orders list, by consent of learned Counsel for the parties, they are taken up for hearing, heard and disposed of by this order.

(2.) THE Petitioners are the Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 1619/2009 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Nelamangala and the Respondents are the Defendants. The Plaintiffs filed the above suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 8.3.2006 and for certain other reliefs, the Defendants have filed their written statement. The Plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 17 under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling of the order dated 12.1.2011 and to re -open the case and permit them to lead further evidence, I.A. 18 under Order 18 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure to correct certain errors said to have been recorded by the Trial Court in the cress -examination of P.W.2 dated 12.1.2011 and I.A. 19 under Order 17 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure to defer/adjourn the cross -examination of D. Ws. 1 and 2 The court below has dismissed the applications by its order dated 21.1.2011. The Plaintiffs have challenged the validity of the said order in these writ petitions.

(3.) IN so far as I.A. 18 is concerned, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in the cross -examination of P.W.2 dated 12.1.2011 in line Nos. 3 and 7 of paragraph 2, the word '2007' has been wrongly typed, instead of typing it as '2006'. Similarly, line No. 3 of paragraph 3 of the cross -examination of P.W.2, the sentence should have contained the word 'not'. In order to correct the typographical errors in the cross -examination of P.W.2, the Plaintiffs filed I.A. 18 along with an affidavit of P.W.2. In the affidavit., P.W.2 has stated that he has not deposed in his cross -examination that the year of execution of the agreement was 2007. He has stated the year of execution of agreement was '2006'. The suggestion made to him by the learned Counsel for the Defendant was denied by stating as 'It is not true to suggest that the possession was not delivered at the time of memorandum of understanding'. However, the word 'not' has not been typed in the said sentence. It is further argued that the aforesaid typographical error will have a serious bearing on the merits of the case. Therefore, it requires to be corrected.