KULWINDER KAUR Vs. PARAMJIT SINGH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-decree holder is aggrieved of the order declining the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint and under Sections 151 and 152 CPC for modification of the judgment and decree dated 1.9.2003. Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in a suit for injunction, due to inadvertence, number of the house, which is actually 11483, was mentioned as 11477. The evidence was led in respect of H. No. 11483 and not of H. No. 11477. In this regard, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the documents, i.e., electricity bill, telephone bill, ration card and driving licence to show that the address of petitioner Kulwinder Kaur is 11483 and not 11477. However, the trial Court has declined the application by relegating the petitioner to file a fresh suit. In this regard, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Tilak Raj v. Baikunthi Devi and others, 2006 4 RCR(Civ) 536 to contend that provisions of Section 152 CPC deal with the rectification of the errors, which contain in the description of the suit property.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and appraised the paper book.

(3.) The ration card, electricity bill and driving licence would reveal that the address of petitioner Kulwinder Kaur is H. No. 11483 and not 11477. Even the defendants in the suit had been proceeded against ex-parte and moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and in that case, description of the property has correctly been given. An application was filed in which evidence was led and the attorney of respondent No. 2 deposed that the house number is 11483. It would be apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the cross-examination of AW-1 Kuldeep Singh, which reads thus:--