LAWS(JHAR)-2012-7-276

SITA DEVI JAISWARA Vs. SHANKAR RAM JAISWARA

Decided On July 23, 2012
Sita Devi Jaiswara Appellant
V/S
Shankar Ram Jaiswara Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present writ petition has been filed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 27.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 81 of 2010 whereby the learned lower appellate court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner (original plaintiff) u/O. 6, R. 17 r/w Sec. 151 of the CPC for amendment of plaint to the extent of correcting the typing error which was wrongly typed as 1983 instead of 1993 in the plaint. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Jai Prakash appearing for the petitioner while describing the facts of the case, submitted that in the year 1943 the father of the petitioner purchased Schedule-'A' property measuring 34 decimals by registered sale deed. The family of the father of petitioner namely Ram Dular Jaiswara comprised of his father Bhaglu Ram and mother Lakhi Devi and they used to live jointly. Ram Dular Jaiswara made construction over Schedule-'A' property and on such construction Holding No. 313/268 was assigned by Dhanbad Municipality.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below has failed to appreciate that the amendment sought for was absolutely of formal nature as the petitioner (Original Plaintiff) has sought for amendment in respect of typographical mistake.

(3.) As against that, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents (original defendants) submitted that the court below has, after careful consideration of the submissions made before it, passed an order, whereby the provisions contained in u/O. 6, R. 17 of the CPC have been properly considered and thereby, the application, which was made at the belated stage, has been rejected by the learned court below. It is further submitted that this application was submitted after conclusion of the arguments and the matter was posted for judgment. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that in the plaint, there were two prayers and so far amended prayer clause (a) is concerned, the plaintiff has sought declaration with regard to Sale Deed which was executed on 29.8.1974, therefore, the question of limitation was very crucial issue for deciding the suit and the appeal, which has been preferred by the respondents being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment delivered by the trial court. It is further submitted that the Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act are very much relevant for the purpose of deciding this issue before the learned court below as the limitation prescribed under the said Article is three years from the date of execution of the documents.