RANIA Vs. KAMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rania petitioner had filed a suit for possession by pre-emption of the land as detailed in the head-note of the plaint. A decree was passed accordingly in his favour by the Senior Sub Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala, on 29th April 1972. The operative part of the decree reads as under:

(2.) The decree-holder filed an application purporting to be one under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for correction of the judgment and decree, wherein Khata No. 38 has been wrongly inserted as khata No. 58 and' that this was an inadvertent clerical mistake which could be rectified. This petition was dismissed by the Senior Sub Judge by his order, dated 25-9-1974 holding that:

(3.) I have perused the plaint and I find that in the head-note it is clearly mentioned: "Suit for possession by pre-emption of land entered in Khata No. 38 min, khasra Nos. 8, 11, 21, 23, 36, 37, 49, 22 land measuring 38 Kanals 10 marlas". In para 1 of the plaint also it is stated as. "That the land entered in Khata No. 38 min, Khasra Nos. 8, 11, 21, 23, 36, 37, 49, 22 land measuring 38 kanals 10 marlas". However, in para 2 of the plaint there is no doubt that it is written as "Khata No. 58." But this appears to be purely a clerical or a typographical mistake when in the head-note of the plaint as also in para No. 1 of the same it has specifically been mentioned as "Khata No. 38 mm". In the copy of the khasra girdwari which has been exhibited as P. 2 it is clearly written as Khewat No. 38. The copy of Jamabandi. Exhibit P. 3 also indicates that it is Khata Khatauni No. 38 min. The sale deed, Exhibit D. 1, also shows that it is Khata No. 38 min, which was sold. Therefore, this documentary evidence leaves no manner of doubt to hold that in fact it was Khata No. 38 min in which the land was comprised and which was the subject matter of the suit for preemption and it appears that by typographical mistake in para 2 of the plaint it has been mentioned as 58. Therefore, in these circumstances, I think the court had to allow this amendment which was purely of a clerical nature which had appeared in the pleading.