MALTIBEN CHHABILDAS ASHARA Vs. NA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The court is convened through video conference.

(2.) By way of this petition the petitioners prayed to quash and set aside the order dtd. 20/10/2021 passed below Exh.41 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Court at Rajkot in an amendment application filed in Misc. Civil Application No. 1359 of 2014 and to amend the property description.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are legal heirs of deceased Tulsidas Jagjivandas Ashara. That, the Tulsidas Ashara was holding certain land / property located at Plot No. 2, Street No. 1/7 corner, land admeasuring 62.628 Sq. mtrs, Lati Plot, Sadgurunagar, Rajkot. That, the original property was admeasuring 438.40 Sq. mtrs, which was on joint names of 7 persons and from which the deceased - Tulsidas Jagjivandas Ashara was having 1/7 share. That, the said property was obtained by the Tulsidas Ashara by virtue of an order dtd. 7/5/1994 passed by the learned 4 th Joint Civil Court (SD), Rajkot in Special Civil Suit No. 182 of 1993 and the decree was issued in the name of Chhabildas Tulsidas Ashara. That, the heirship certificate was issued for two properties, however, there is no dispute regarding the 2nd property. That, the petitioners father / father-in-law having died intestate, the petitioners applied for a heirship certificate before the concerned learned Civil Court on 2/12/2014. That, as per the routine practice and provisions, an advertisement in a prominent newspaper was given, against which no objections were received. That, the certificate was issued by disposing the application on 30/4/2015, therefore, the petitioners were having full ownership of the property in question. That, the petitioners recently came to know that there is minor typographical error in the description of the property i.e. correct: Plot No. 2, Street No. 1/7 and Incorrect typographical error version: Plot No. 4, Street No. 8/3 and rest of the property description was correct in the heirship certificate. That the petitioners filed an amendment application before the same concerned learned Court but the learned Court dismissed the amendment application mainly on the following three grounds (a) the prayer to amend is an altogether a new prayer (b) the learned Court has not committed any mistake and (c) there is delay in filing the application.