SENDAMARAI Vs. UDAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition arises out of the order dtd. 17/1/2022 passed by the trial court on applications under Order VI Rule 17 and Sec. 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner herein seeking amendment to the schedule of the subject property, in which, according to the petitioner, while describing the measurement of the suit schedule property, inadvertently, an error had crept in, in which, instead of showing measurement on the East-West as 30 feet it was shown as 40 feet and on the North-South as 40 feet instead of 30 feet. It is the case of the petitioner that the said error was made known at the time of seeking mutation of the revenue records. Thereafter, an application was filed before the trial Court seeking amendment to the final decree, which application came to be dismissed by the trial Court by the impugned order.

(2.) perusal of the impugned order it is seen that the only reason assigned by the trial Court is the pendency of appeal in Regular First Appeal No.2072 of 2017, apparently, arising out of the said decree. Learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that even the said Regular First Appeal has been dismissed, thereby confirming the decree and judgment that was passed in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner brings to the notice of this Court that a Court Commissioner had been appointed during the final decree proceedings by the trial Court and the said Commissioner also, after the spot inspection, had submitted a sketch wherein the description/dimension of the suit schedule property has been mentioned as sought to be amended by the petitioner. He submits that despite the said dimension being on record, the trial Court has lost sight of the same, resulting in passing of the impugned order. Learned counsel, further, bringing to the notice of the Court the reasoning assigned at paragraph 11 of the impugned order, submits that the trial Court is in error to come to the conclusion that the amendment, if allowed, would change the measurement of the property. He also brings to the attention of this Court, the plaint which is filed by the minor son of the respondent in another suit in Original Suit No.7002 of 2016 pertaining to the very same property, wherein the dimension of the property is given as sought to be amended by the plaintiff therein.

(3.) Heard and perused the records.