ASHA PRAJAPATI Vs. CHHIDAMILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 5.1.2010 passed by the III Civil Judge Class I, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.9 A/2009 wherein a prayer made by the applicant for correction in the decree has been rejected.

(2.) It is contended that a civil suit was filed by the applicant against the respondent No.1 for specific performance of a contract or in the alternative refund of the earnest money with interest. Since the land in suit was agriculture land, the State of Madhya Pradesh through the Collector, Jabalpur, was impleaded as a proforma defendant. In the plaint, area of the land was specifically described with its survey number in words and figure both. It was categorically said that in fact the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 was in need of money, 2 therefore, a loan was obtained by him from the applicant on 15.4.2001 and an acknowledgment of the same was executed. On 12.5.2001, the respondent again came to the applicant and stated that he was in need of some more money for the purposes of purchase of the land from one Chandrika Prasad Patel and Rs.1 lac was needed for the said purposes for getting the sale deed executed by 16.5.2001. The applicant refused to oblige the respondent by giving loan of Rs.1 lac, but, when the respondent offered to sale part of the land owned by him, such an offer was accepted by the applicant and an amount of Rs.80,000/ was agreed as sale consideration for part of the land of Survey No.363 area 0.50 hectare. The respondent was in fact in need of Rs.1 lac, therefore, he offered part of the land of Survey No.361 area 0.19 hectare and trees standing on the land of Kh.No.363 for a consideration of Rs.20,000/. To get the sale deed executed, the applicant, after getting her FDR prematurely withdrawn, paid the amount to the respondent. However, the respondent executed the sale deed of land of Survey No.363 only and no sale deed for the land of Survey No.361 was executed, though the possession of the same was delivered to the applicant.

(3.) Even when the demands were made to execute the sale deed, the respondent had not complied with the same nor had performed his part of the contract aforesaid, therefore, the suit was required to be filed. In the plaint, not only the area of the disputed land was mentioned in figure, but the same was also described in words. Even in the relief clause made in the plaint, it was specifically mentioned that the decree was to be granted for execution of the sale deed of the land bearing Survey No.361 area 0.19 hectare. However, though 3 this figure was mentioned in words in appropriate manner, only because of typographical error, the figure in the description of area was typed as '0.10'. It is the case of the applicant that the respondent No.1 was proceeded exparte and the evidence of applicant was recorded. Thereafter, the decree was granted by the court. However, while passing the judgment and decree, erroneously, only the description in figures of the area of the disputed land was mentioned and when this fact came to the notice of the applicant, immediately the application was made for correction in the decree under Section 152 of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'). Such an application has been rejected by the impugned order, therefore, this revision is required to be filed.