PREM PAL Vs. SANTOSH KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Yamunanagar, Jagadhari dated 9.9.1995 allowing the application to correct khewat numbers in the judgment . and decree. The respondents filed a suit for pre-emption of the sale in favour of the petitioners. In that suit, he has given the khewat number as 4 instead of 44. Likewise, the khasra number was wrongly mentioned as 20//40 instead of 20//24. The decree has been passed for pre-emption and the said decree has been confirmed by the first appellate Court as well as by this Court. Thereafter, realising the mistake in the khewat and khasra numbers, the plaintiff moved an application to the lower appellate Court for correcting the mistake under Section 153-A CPC. That application has been allowed in the impugned order. Hence this revision.

(2.) There is no dispute of the fact that the Court can amend the mistake in the decree as well as in the pleadings. The suit was based on the right of pre-emption of the sale in favour of the petitioners. There is no dispute that the petitioners purchased the property in khewat No. 44 and khasra No. 20//24. Therefore, when the main relief prayed for in the suit is that the plaintiff is entitled to pre-empt the sale, he is seeking the relief against the property which has been purchased by the petitioners in which the plaintiff has got the right of preemption. When the petitioners purchased the property in khewat number 44 and khasra No. 20//24, the mention of khewat No. 4 and Khasra No. 20//40 is clearly clerical and typographical mistake. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not disputed the jurisdiction of the lower appellate Court to make the correction though the decree has been confirmed by this Court in view of the introduction of Section 153 A CPC in 1976.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the limitation for filing the suit for pre-emption is one year under section 30 of the Punjab Preemption Act, 1913 and the application for amendment having been filed beyond the period of one year, it is barred by time. It cannot be disputed that no period of limitation has been prescribed for amendment of the decree and pleadings. The same can be made at any time. The suit as originally filed , was within time. As already observed, the suit was for pre-emption of the sale in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, the nature and character of the suit will not change by virtue of the amendment. Reliance on the decision of Leelawati v. Hukam Chand, (1988-1)93 P.LR. 68 is also misplaced. There, during the pendency of the suit, a fresh ground for pre-emption was sought to be raised by the amendment beyond the period of limitation. This Court held that when a valuable right had secured to the appellants by the lapse of time, the amendment cannot be allowed. Such is not the case here. In the present case, no fresh ground for preemption has been sought to be raised. The only relief which the respondent-plaintiff is seeking, is to correct the mistake in the khasra number and the khewat number. Admittedly, the suit property which has been purchased by the petitioners is sought to be pre-empted. The sale is in respect of khewat number 44 and khasra number 20//24. Therefore, no question of limitation arises.