MAJOR SINGH Vs. BAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is against the order of Sub Judge dated 22.4.1995 declining the petitioner's application Under Sec. 26 of the Specific Relief Act read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPQ

(2.) It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of some clerical mistake a wrong khasra number was mentioned in the agreement duly executed between the parties and hence the need has arisen for seeking rectification of the agreement as well as consequential amendment of the plaint It is precisely for this reason that an application was filed by the petitioner that he may be permitted to substitute Khasra No. 17M/4(8 -0) instead of Khasra No. 7M/4(8 -0). The Court has however, declined the amendment sought and that the present application is not maintainable and in fact he ought to have filed a separate application Under Sec. 26 of the Specific Relief Act as well as Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The Court further held that the Court has no power to modify the Khasra number at this stage. Before me, it has been argued that in terms of Sec. 26 Sub -clause (b) of the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff is well within his right to seek the rectification of the instrument where an error has crept due to clerical mistake or on account of mutual mistake and so the Court below has wrongly declined the prayer made.

(3.) Respondent's counsel on the other hand has argued that it has not been specifically stated in the application as to the precise portion which he intends to delete or substitute in the proposed amended plaint, and so the Court below rightly declined the application.