MOHD ALI UMAR Vs. HASAN MOHD UMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. By way of this writ petition, petitioner challenges the order dated 1-5-2001 passed by District Judge dismissing revision preferred against the order dated 18-1-2001 passed by Trial Court rejecting amendment application.

(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.

(3.) FROM perusal of record, it clearly transpires that plaintiff in the plaint stated that possession was taken after execution of sale deed and as such fact stated in the amendment application that by clerical error/slip of pen instead of 1978, 1977 was written appears to be correct. In view of the fact cause of action mentioned in plaint arose after execution of sale deed i. e. , 1978. Thus Courts below wrongly rejected amendment application on the ground of delay only.