GOPAL DASS Vs. PAWAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy between the parties is as under:-The parties were litigating in a suit for permanent injunction pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), jagadhri. They announced to the Court that they had come to terms. A documented compromise (Annexure P-l) was placed on record. The learned Trial Court passed a decree on the basis thereof. Thereafter, the plaintiff therein (respondent No. 1 before this court) filed a plea under Section 152 read with Section 151, C. P. C. for correction of a particular Rect. number; indicated in the impugned compromise. The averment was that the aforementioned Rect. number had been inadvertently mentioned as 27/10 in place of correct Rect. number 28/10. Infect, the averment proceeded that there is no rect. number corresponding to the recorded numbers.

(2.) THE plea for rectification was contested by the defendant-petitioner, however, the learned Trial Court allowed the plea vide impugned order dated 21. 10. 2004. In the course of the impugned order, the learned trial Court held that "both the suits were contested and the main grudge of the plaintiff in both the suits was to reach the Khasra no. 7 of Rect. No. 27 which was the land of the plaintiff and there was no rasta to that land. Thereafter, compromise Ex. CX was reached between the parties which was signed by both the parties, dated 23. 01,1999 and the same was produced in the Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . From the perusal of the compromise Ex. CX as well as the intention of the parties, that the plaintiff was given a rasta along with the southern dole of both the khasra numbers, so that the plaintiff should have an ingress/outgress to his khasra No. 7, 8 of Rect. No. 27 from the rasta left the time of consolidation, as is clear from the copy of akssajra placed on file. This clearly envisages if a rasta is traced from the southern dole of khasra No. 6 of Rect. No. 27 to reach the khasra Nos. 7 and 8 of Rect. No. there is no khasra No. 10 of Rect. No. 27 in that line, rather khasra No. 10 of rect. No. 28 falls on the Eastern side of khasra No. 6 of Rect. No. 27 which has been mentioned in the compromise Ex. CX but there is no khasra No. 10 of Rect. No. 27 even existed in the revenue estate of village Rapri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the mistake occurred in the compromise Ex. CX is only clerical/typographical one, which can be well corrected by invoking the provisions of Section 151/152, CPC. "

(3.) MR. M. L. Sarin, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that the approach of the learned Trial court is invalid particularly when it was not even the plea on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent that there was any typographical or clerical error (in noticing the averred Rect number) on the part of the Court.