RAM KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. ONKAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-plaintiff is in revision petition against the impugned order whereby the application for seeking amendment of the plaint for correcting the clerical mistake to the effect that word 'owner' was mentioned in para No.1 and 3 of the plaint instead of 'cultivator' has been dismissed.

(2.) Mr. M.R. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants and arraying the Assistant Collector 2 nd Grade and State of Haryana through District Collector/Deputy Commissioner as defendant No.5 and 6 on the premise that Chhajju son of Durga, father of the plaintiff and grandfather of plaintiffs No.2 to 4 and defendant No.1 to 4 was owner in actual physical possession of the agricultural land i.e. subject matter of the suit. Prior to the consolidation, the suit property was counted in bighas, biswas and biswanis and after consolidation, the suit property was referred to in kanala and marlas. After the death of Chhajju, the property was required to be mutated in favour of three sons but the revenue officials illegally entered name of one son in the column of cultivation instead of three sons, though the plaintiffs were in physical cultivating possession of their 2/3rd respective shares. Cause of action accrued to file the suit when defendant No.1 to 4 in the year 2015 attempt to take forcible possession. Even application to the police was also moved. During the pendency of the application, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (Annexure P-3) was moved by stating as under:-

(3.) The aforementioned application was contested but the trial Court dismissed the application.