JUDGMENT - OKA ABHAY S., J.:—By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 4th July, 1984 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune, below application Exh. 1 in C-Application No. 60 of 1984.

2. The petitioners are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff in regular Civil Suit No. 1389 of 1978 filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, against the respondents. The said suit initially came to be decreed ex parte on 29th July, 1980. Thereafter in Writ Petition No. 3293 of 1981 an order of remand was passed by setting aside the decree passed on 29th July, 1980. After the remand, a decree for possession was passed in favour of the original plaintiff on 5th July, 1984 which has admittedly attained finality. On 23rd March, 1984, the petitioners made an application before the trial Court pointing out that in the judgement, suit property has been wrongly described as Survey No. 66/5-A instead of Survey No. 66-A/5 and prayed for effecting necessary corrections. The said application was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that in the plaint, the survey number was mentioned as Survey No. 66/5A. On 9th April, 1984, an application was made by the petitioners by invoking section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Code"), praying for correcting a typing mistake in the plaint as well as in the judgement and decree passed in the said suit. The case of the petitioner in the said application was that the suit property is Survey No. 66-A/5 of village Dobadwadi, Ghorpadi Village, Pune and by mistake in the first paragraph of the plaint and in the schedule to the plaint survey number of the property was typed as 66/5-A instead of 66-A/5. A contention was raised in the said application that correct survey number was mentioned in the deposition of the original plaintiff and also at various other places and the defendence in the suit were fully aware about the correct survey number which was the subject matter of the suit.

3. Initially the original defendant No. 1 was made a party to the application under section 152 of the said Code and later on other defendence were added as parties and were served with the notice of the application. However, reply was filed only by original defendant No. 1 i.e. respondent No. 1 herein. It was contended that the mistake in the plaint cannot be allowed to be rectified as the said mistake was not corrected when the proceedings were filed earlier in the District Court and in this Court.

4. While rejecting the application by passing the impugned order, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that it was not a clerical or arithmetical mistake and as such the original plaintiff could have taken notice of the said mistake earlier and could have corrected it. The learned Judge held that the original plaintiff failed to do so as he was not knowing the correct number of the said property. The learned trial Judge, therefore, came to the conclusion that it cannot be said that the mistake was cierical or arithmetical mistake or accidental slip or omission.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the correct survey number of the said property was mentioned in the deposition of the original plaintiff and on the map annexed to the plaint. He further submitted that the original defendants were all along aware about the correct survey number of the property in respect of which the suit was filed. He submitted that incorrect survey number was mentioned in the plaint only due to typographical error and the said error can be corrected even after decree was passed.

6. The learned Counsel appearing for some of the respondents contended that the accidental errors or mistakes can be corrected only if the said mistakes or errors were in the judgment or decree of the Court and the mistake which has crept in the plaint itself cannot

Click Here to Read the rest of this document