JAGTA Vs. RULDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Sections 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed for correction of rectangle number in the plaint and in the decree sheet.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a suit was filed for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are owner in possession to the extent of 2/3 share in the suit land, detailed in Para No.1 of plaint dated 9.9.1984 along with the appellant in Regular Second Appeal No. 2446 of 1988, who is the owner in possession of the remaining 1/3 share of the suit land. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed by the Trial Court on 30.1.1987. The appeal filed by Jagta was dismissed on 1.9.1988. Regular Second Appeal was dismissed by this Court on March 27, 1991. Special Leave Petition was dismissed by Apex Court on 7.8.1991 and as such the judgment and decree dated 30.1.1987 stand confirmed by this Court. In Para 4 of the application, it has been stated that due to typographical error in Para 1 of the plaint instead of rectangle No. 57 it has been wrongly typed as rectangle No. 75 and this error has been repeated in the decree sheet which was confirmed by this Court on 27.3.1991. It is further mentioned therein that the abovesaid error is typographical mistake and does not affect the merit of the case and this has occurred while typing the plaint which deserves to be corrected under Sections 152 and 153 of the Civil Procedure Code. It has been further stated in Para 5 of the application that the decree passed in favour of the respondent-applicant has become useless due to this typographical mistake and, therefore, the correction of rectangle number in Para No. 1 of the plaint and decree sheet be allowed.

(3.) Notice of this application was given to the appellant in the Regular Second Appeal. Reply has been filed and this application has been opposed mainly on the ground that since the appellant has filed S.L.P. in the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 7.8.1991, therefore, this application is not maintainable before this Court because the judgment and decree passed by this Court has merged in the Judgment passed in S.L.P. on 7.8.1991. On 14.7.1995 counsel for the parties were directed to furnish information to this Court whether a decree sheet is prepared in the Supreme Court when a Special Leave Petition is dismissed against a decision of this Court in Regular Second Appeal. Today, learned counsel for the parties have stated at the bar that no decree sheet in prepared in the Supreme Court, when Special Leave Petition is dismissed against a decision of this Court in Regular Second Appeal. Mr.C.B. Goel, Advocate for the respondent-applicant has contended that in the instant case claim for declaration of land was based on the basis of Jamabandi for the year 1978-79, a copy of which was attached with the plaint. In the Jamabandi rectangle number is 57, but instead of rectangle No. 57, the scribe of the plaint has wrongly mentioned it as rectangle No. 75, while the other descriptions of the property in dispute were correctly given. The defendant in his written statement denied the title of the plaintiffs over the suit land. He did not point out the wrong description of the rectangle number in the plaint. The issues were framed and the parties adduced their evidence and ultimately this suit was decreed. All this shows that there was no controversy as regard the identity of the property in dispute, at the time of the suit. The application filed by the decree holders is only to amend the discription of an item of the property in the plaint and in the decree by substituting the correct number for the wrong number and as such it would not amount to amending the pleadings and it was simply an accidental mistake. In the course of proceedings the parties were not under any misapprehension as to the real subject matter in controversy and no prejudice has been caused to the judgment-debtors because of wrong mentioning of rectangle number.