RAMCHANDRA RAM Vs. SHAILENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil miscellaneous petition is taken up today through Video conferencing.

(2.) The present civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the orders dtd. 19/9/2018 and 13/11/2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-II (Munsif), Koderma in Execution Case No.04 of 2013, whereby the petition filed by the decree holder/petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 read with Ss. 151, 152 and 153 of CPC has been rejected.

(3.) The factual background of the case as stated in the present civil miscellaneous petition is that the plaintiff/petitioner and one Mira Devi - the respondent no.2 filed Title Suit No.41 of 2010 against the defendant/respondent no.1 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-II (Munsif), Koderma praying inter alia for declaration of their title and possession with respect to the suit land as described in 'Schedule-A' of the plaint and for grant of permanent injunction against the defendant/respondent no.1 restraining him from going over the suit land. The learned court below disposed of the said suit in terms with the Judgment dtd. 12/3/2013 (the decree was signed on 18/3/2013). Thereafter, the decree holder/petitioner filed Execution Case No.04 of 2013 before the learned court below. In the said execution case, the petitioner filed a petition under Order VI Rule 17 read with Ss. 151 and 152 of CPC seeking amendment in 'Schedule A' of the plaint and for corresponding amendment in the judgment and decree of Title Suit No.41 of 2010 with regard to area of the suit property stating inter alia that due to mistake, the area of the land was wrongly mentioned as '0.08' decimal instead of '8' decimals although specific boundary was given in the land described in Schedule 'A' of the plaint. The executing court, however, vide order dtd. 19/9/2018, rejected the said petition filed by the decree holder/petitioner seeking amendment in Schedule 'A' of the plaint as well as in the judgment and decree. The decree holder/petitioner thereafter filed a separate petition under Order VI Rule 17 read with Ss. 151, 152 and 153 of CPC seeking amendment/rectification in Schedule 'A' of the plaint, judgment and decree of Title Suit No.41 of 2010 with regard to area of the suit property stating that due to some typographical error, the area of the land was wrongly mentioned as '0.08' decimals instead of '8' decimals in the plaint, judgment and decree of Title Suit No. 41 of 2010. The learned court below vide order dtd. 13/11/2019 also rejected the said petition filed by the decree holder/petitioner.