SAMIR SINGH Vs. UJAGAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge 2nd Class, Karnal, dated the 6th June, 1975, whereby he rejected an application for the amendment of the plaint.

(2.) The petitioners had filed a suit for pre-emption. Therein apart from other land, Khasra No. 224 was mentioned as part of the land which was to be pre-empted. This number was mentioned patently on the basis of a certified copy of the sale deed duly secured by the plaintiffs through the Copying Agency. However, later during the course of the proceedings it came to the notice of the plaintiffs that there was an error made by the Copying Agency whereby in place of Khasra No. 222, a wrong Khasra No. 224 had been mentioned. Consequently an application was moved on behalf of the plaintiffs that a bona fide mistake had arisen on the basis of the certified copy of the sale deed and the same be corrected. The learned trial Court in the order under revision rejected the same on the ground that the mistake of the Copying Agency would not enable the plaintiffs to seek amendment at a later stage.

(3.) The Court below has been apparently influenced by the fact that in the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants, a routine objection that the suit was for partial pre-emption had been raised but nevertheless the plaintiffs did not forthwith proceed to seek a correction of the relevant Khasra number. This assumption appears to be respondents frankly uncharitable. Mr. Sarin on behalf of the respondents frankly conceded that in the written statement, the objection was not in any way specified on the ground that a wrong Khasra number had been mentioned in the plant or that the real Khasra Number 222 had been excluded from the ambit of pre-emption. That being so a mere general objection that the suit was for partial pre-emption, could not even remotely give the plaintiffs any inkling that there was any error in the specification of the true Khasra number. Obviously no blame can attach to the plaintiffs on this score.