BRIJ LAL CHADHA Vs. GIAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having a look at the copies of the original written statements in the two ejectment petitions, I am of the view that the Appellate Authority was absolutely right in allowing Gian Singh to amend his written statement.

(2.) BEFORE me I have copies of the written statements filed by Gian Singh in both the ejectment petitions furnished by the parties and from them it is apparent that there was obvious clerical mistake. The words 'in dispute' in para 2 of the written statement in the case in hand should have been deleted and in its place words 'in possession of respondents Nos. 2 to 6' should have been mentioned but by clerical mistake the correction was made in the other ejectment petition which created the difficulty for Gian Singh to get real justice and he had to seek the amendment. Although the addition of words 'in possession of respondents Nos. 2 to 6' in the other case did not alter the stand of Gian Singh in that case, the non-deletion of words 'in dispute' in the present case seriously affected his case. A reading of the two written statements and a look on the plan Ex. A.9 clearly shows that the central portion of the property was claimed by Gian Singh as having been acquired for the Rehabilitation Department and the property towards its right, i.e. shown to be that of Mrs. Krishnawati Chadha was the property, which was covered by the other ejectment petition whereas in this ejectment petition the central portion was claimed by Gian Singh. The mistake is obvious and is apparent on the record and the Appellate Authority was right in allowing the amendment in the interest of justice.

(3.) WITH the aforesaid observations, the revision stands disposed of with no order as to costs. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 10.2.1986. Order accordingly.