LAWS(MAD)-1997-8-61

KUMAR ALIAS SELVAKUMAR Vs. P B THIRUNAVUKKARASU

Decided On August 29, 1997
KUMAR ALIAS SELVAKUMAR Appellant
V/S
P B THIRUNAVUKKARASU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is against the order of the small Causes Court, Madras (Appellate Authority) dated 8. 7. 1997 allowing M. P. No. 332 of 1997 in R. C. A. No. 726 of 1994.

(2.) THE respondent has filed the petition for eviction of the petitioner before the Rent Controller on the ground that the requires the building for own use and occupation for parking of vehicles. He stated that he requires the building for parking his vehicles viz. , Scooters TMH 2058, TSJ 455, TMA 5268 besides the car. THE Rent Controller without proper appreciation of the facts and of the law dismissed the petition for eviction. As against the same, the respondent has filed the appeal. After hearing of appeal at length, and when orders were reserved the respondent has filed a petition in M. P. No. 332 of 1997 for amendment of Ground No. 5. THE amendment is for deleting the word "which was sold recently by the appellant. " THE respondent filed a counter opposing the amendment. In the counter it is stated that the petitioner filed a petition for appointment of a Commissioner to ascertain the facts as to whether the petitioner was still in possession of the car bearing registration No. M. L. Y. 2477. THE said petition was dismissed on the ground that it was at the belated stage. It is stated that another application was taken out by the respondent for production of relevant documents pertaining to the car mentioned above. Only a duplicate R. C. Book with the renewal of tax for the vehicle for the year 1996-97 was produced. In paragraph 7 it is also stated that the application for amendment was taken on 25. 4. 1997 after a lapse of 3 years. It was at a belated stage particularly when the case was reserved for orders and on that ground the application must be dismissed.

(3.) THE line or the sentence "which was sold recently by the appellant" is said to be a typographical error. This is unacceptable. Typographic mistakes can occur in spellings, wrong words, repetition of a sentence etc. , but it cannot be by adding the statement of fact. If the statement is in respect of a fact the said fact unless instructed to someone to the typist to type it out, the typist would not add such a statement of fact. A reading of the words itself shows that they cannot be construed to be a typographical error by any stretch of imagination.