The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Court has the inherent power under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to rectify mistakes inadvertently committed in the pleadings to render substantial justice to the parties and prevent abuse of the process of the Court.

SAMAPTI CHATTERJEE, J.

1. The present review application has been filed by Terai Infrastructures Ltd, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 being the respondent no.3 in the main writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner filed the said writ petition seeking following reliefs :-

"(a) Writ and/or Writs I the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities and/or each of them to :

(i) act in accordance with law

(ii) refund the said total sum of Rs.31,67,803/- as pleased in paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 herein to the petitioners forthwith

(b) Writ and/or Writs in the nature of prohibition prohibiting the respondent authorities and/or each of them from dealing with and/or disposing of and/or further encumbering and/or creating any third party right, title and interest over and in respect of the said property more fully and particularly described in schedule of the tender notice being annexure P-2 in any manner whatsoever.

(c) Writ and/or Writs in the nature of certiorari commanding the respondents nos.1 and 2 and /or each of them to transmit and certify each and every records, appears and documents relating to the instant case before this Hon'ble Court so that conscionable justice can be made by directing the respondents nos.1 and 2 no.1 and 2 to refund the total sum of Rs. 31, 67,803/- to the petitioners forthwith by quashing entire legal action of the respondents nos.1 and 2 no.2 and 2.

(d) Rule nisi in terms of prayers above.

(e) Rule be made absolute if no cause or insufficient cause is shown.

(f) Injunction restraining the respondents nos.1 and 2 and each of them and/or their men, agents, servants and assigns to deal with and/or dispose of and/or further encumbering and/or creating any third party right, title or interest over and in respect of the said property as more fully and particularly described in the said tender notice dated July 8, 2010 being annexure P-2 herein and in any manner whatsoever until the instant petition is disposed of.

(g) Directions upon the respondents nos.1 and 2 no.1 and 2 to forthwith refund the sake consideration to the petitioners.

(h) Ad interim orders in terms of prayers above.

(i) Costs of and/or incidental to this application be paid by the respondents.

(j) Such further or other order or Orders be made and/or Direction or Directions be passed as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."

3. At the time of disposing of the said writ petition on 26th September, 2016 learned Advocates representing the private respondent no.3 (petitioner herein) without taking proper instruction from their client submitted before this Court that schedule of the plaint of Title Suit No.52 of 2006 is different from the property sold to the writ petitioner by the bank. Learned Advocate for the respondent no.3/petitioner herein submitted before the Court that their names should be deleted from the cause title. Therefore, on 26th September, 2016 this Court disposed of the said matter thereby directing the respondent/bank to deliver possession of the said property to the writ petitioner within two weeks from the date of communication of the order and further directed the Officer-in-Charge, Bhaktinagar Police Station to render all assistance to the bank at the time of handing over possession of the said land to the petitioner.

Submissions of the Learned Advocates

4. Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no.3/petitioner herein submitted that the submission of the learned Advocate who was appearing for the respondent no.3 was made before the this Court only on the basis of the plaint of Title Suit No.52 of 2006 and not on instruction.

5. Mr. Mukherjee further contended that immediately after getting server copy of the order dated 26th September, 2016 the petitioner detected the mistake in the schedule of the plaint of the T.S. No.52 of 2006 and therefore moved an amendment application before the Learned Civil Court for correction of the plaint of T.S No.52 of 2006 which has b