MUNIYA BAI Vs. GOLMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 20.7.2011 passed in MJC No.07/2008 by First Additional District Judge, Betul by which applications under Sections 151 and 152 CPC made by the applicant have been rejected.

(2.) It is contended that a suit was filed by the applicant/plaintiff against the defendants for declaration and permanent injunction with respect to certain suit land. It was described in the plaint that the land bearing Kh.No.319/1 area 0.891 hectare was the land obtained by the applicant in a partition. However, the defendants were trying to dispose of this land and dispossess the applicant. Therefore, the suit was required to be filed. The suit was contested by the respondents No.1,2 and 5 and they filed a joint written statement. Defendant No.9 filed a separate written statement. After trial, the trial court reached to the conclusion that the sale deed dated 3.7.1997 was not binding on the applicant and that he was having a share in the land of Kh.Nos. 319, 400 and 406. It was further declared that the defendants No.1 and 2 have no title on the suit land on the strength of sale deed dated 3.7.1997. Golman, the respondent No.1 herein, preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court. The said appeal was dismissed on 30.6.2008 by the First Additional District Judge, Betul. During pendency of the appeal, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC was made by the applicant for seeking amendment in the plaint for correction of the figure of Khasra number of the land in dispute. However, the appellate court proceeded to here the appeal and decided the same. After passing of the decree by the appellate court, the applicant again made an application under Sections 151 and 152 CPC for correction in the decree passed by the appellate court, but the said application was also rejected by order dated 20.7.2011. Therefore, this revision is required to be filed. It is contended that earlier a writ petition was filed before this Court, but, since such a writ petition was not maintainable, it was withdrawn with liberty to file a civil revision.

(3.) Upon issuance of the notice of this revision, the respondents have appeared. The parties are heard and the record is perused.