ANIL KR RAY Vs. KSHAMA RANI DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Advocates for the respective parties. Very briefly, the facts of the case are as follows.

(2.) THE opposite parties obtained a decree for recovery of possession against the petitioner and challenging such decree the petitioner preferred an appeal but such appeal was dismissed after contested hearing. It appears from the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties that during the proceedings, either before the learned Trial Court in the suit or before the learned Lower Appellate Court in the appeal, no dispute was ever raised with regard to the identity of the suit proper. In other words, the judgment debtor was fully aware of the suit property in respect of which litigation was proceeding. It further appears, as submitted by the learned senior Advocate for the opposite parties, and not disputed by the learned advocate for the petitioner, that during the pendency of the suit the plaint had to be amended and the amended plaint was filed in the suit itself.

(3.) THE learned senior advocate for the opposite parties submitted by producing a copy of the original plaint that in Schedule "c" of the original plaint the correct description was given but when the amended plaint was filed a typographical error crept in the said Scheduled "c" of the plaint. Instead of "south Eastern" side room there was a typographical error to the effect that it was mentioned as "south Western" side room. To be more precise the said learned senior advocate submitted that in the original plaint the word "eastern" was correctly written but in the amended plaint instead of the word "eastern", the word "western" was wrongly typed.