JUDGMENT :

ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI, J.

1. Rule.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner-original plaintiff praying for to issue writ of mandamus or certiorari and/or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 17.03.2020 passed by learned Principal Civil Judge, Satlasana, District: Mahesana passed in application preferred below Exhibit 1 in CMA No. 5/2018 (Annexure-A) in the Regular Civil Suit No. 20 of 2015 and further be pleased to pass necessary orders for rectifying/correcting the name of the village from "Sudasana" to "Sadarasan" in the decree dated 03.07.2018 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 20 of 2015 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Satlasana, District: Mahesana (Annexure-D).

3. Facts in nutshell of the case on hand are that the petitioner herein had filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 20 of 2015 for declaration before the Court of learned Principal Civil Judge, Satlasana, which came to be partly allowed by the judgment and order dated 03.07.2018 and a decree was drawn accordingly, on 14.08.2018. Thereafter, since the petitioner-plaintiff came to the know about the error in showing the name of village "Sadarasan" as "Sudasana", filed an application being Misc. Civil Application No. 5 of 2018 under Sections 151, 152 and 153 and under O. XLVII R. 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, 'the CPC") before the learned trial Court. However, the said application came to be dismissed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Satlasana by an order dated 17.03.2020, being grieved by the same, the petitioner-original plaintiff is before this Court by way of this petition.

4. Heard, learned advocate Mr. Jigar G. Gadhavi for the petitioner-original plaintiff. Though served, none has put in appearance qua the respondents-original defendants.

4.1. It is pertinent to note here that, before the learned trial Court also, none had put in appearance on behalf of the respondents herein-original defendants and the suit, ultimately, came to be decided ex parte so also the impugned application.

5. The learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the learned trial Court has fell into error in rejecting the application in question inasmuch as, a genuine typographical error was crept in the plaint, which came to the notice only after the suit was tried and judgment and decree was passed in the suit. He submitted that the learned trial Court has taken hyper-technical view in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff. He submitted that the error was inadvertent otherwise, the petitioner-plaintiff had produced the relevant documents in support of his say. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, it is prayed that this writ petition may be allowed by setting aside the impugned order and also to rectify the name of village in the judgment and decree as prayed for above.

6. At the outset, it may be reiterated that though served and although sufficient opportunity was given to the respondents, they have chosen not to appear before the Court and accordingly, the Court had no option but to proceed with the matter.

6.1. Regard being had to the submissions made and perusing the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner had filed aforesaid suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 20 of 2015 for declaration, which was decreed in his favour by judgment and order dated 03.07.2018 and a decree was drawn accordingly, on 14.08.2018. However, since there was an error in writing the name of village "Sadarasan" as "Sudasana", the petitioner filed Misc. Civil Application No. 5 of 2018 under the provisions of Sections 151, 152 and 153 and under O. XLVII R. 1 of the CPC before the learned trial Court. The said application came to be dismissed by impugned order dated 17.03.2020 and hence, the petitioner has filed this petition.

6.2. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the learned