HANSABAI SHRIPATI BHOSALE Vs. PARUBAI GOPAL BHOSALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge,s. D. ,pune on 25/3/2008 allowing the amendment in the plaint under section 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (The Code for short ). FACTUAL MATRIX -

(2.) THE respondents/original plaintiffs had filed Regular Civil Suit no. 257/96 against the petitioner/original defendants for declaration and entering their names in the record of rights about Gat no. 1238 of Mouje Winzar , Tal. Velhe, Dist. Pune. The said suit was decreed on 27/3/2003. No appeal was filed. However,on 25/3/2008 the respondents i. e. original plaintiffs made application under section 151 and 152 of the Code for making amendment in the plaint and correction in the judgment and decree in respect of the description of the suit property which was wrongly described as Gat no. 1938 instead of Gat no. 1238. The learned Judge allowed the application by holding that the errors are due to accidental slip and it was necessary to correct to meet the ends of justice. SUBMISSIONS

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that this is not an accidental slip or arithmetical error int he judgment but it is an error committed by the plaintiff while describing the property and,therefore, the application cannot be entertained under sections 151 or 152 of the Code. The respondents should have opted other mode for the relief i. e. either by filing review application or revision. He has further submitted that such type of amendment goes to the root of the case and it is beyond the scope of Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has further submitted that as the decree was passed in respect of Gat no. 1938 and the petitioner was not concerned about said Gat number, hence the petitioner did not file appeal challenging the said judgment and decree. Allowing such amendment is prejudicial to the petitioner. The application for correction was made five years after the date of judgment ,so on the ground of lapses also the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of the learned Trial Judge. In support of his submissions he relied on :-State of Punjab Vs. Darshan Singh ,2004 (2) Mh. L. J. 565. Dwarakadas Vs. State of M. P. and Anr. (1999)3 Supreme Court Cases,500. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Roshan Singh (Dead)by Lrs. And Others, (2008)2,supreme Court Cases ,488. It is submitted that the corrections under section 153 of the Code in the plaint is permitted only if the suit is pending and not after the suit is decided.