ORDER :

1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

“(i) It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure-11) and order dated 05.07.2016 (Annexure-7) passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar by allowing the application dated 03.02.2016 and 01.08.2016 (Annexure-8)

(ii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner;

(iii) Cost of the petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that:-

On 03.01.1985, the petitioner entered into an agreement for sale to purchase the suit property for a sum of Rs.36,000/-. He paid the entire consideration amount to the respondent No.1-Late Shri Rakhram on the same day. In this regard, an agreement took place between the parties and possession of the land in-question was also delivered to the petitioner. In the said agreement, description of the land was given as “Chak 6 B.P.M., Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar Square No.119/331-25 Bigha and Square No.116/331-24.10 Bigha total 49.10 Bigha”.

3. It was also agreed that after getting sale permission, the sale deed would be executed in favour of the petitioner, but, the respondents neither got the permission to sale, nor the sale deed got executed. Thereafter, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid to the respondent No.1-Late Shri Ramrakh on 15.06.2005.

4. As per the terms of the agreement, the petitioner filed a suit in the year 2008 for Specific Performance of Contract, as the respondent did not execute the sale deed in-question. On 10.07.2013, the suit was further amended and an amended plaint was filed. A written statement was filed in the suit by the respondent No.1/2-Smt. Vijay Laxmi, whereby she denied the averments made in the plaint and also refused the execution of any agreement.

5. In the said suit, the learned trial court framed issues regarding the agreement in question, which are reproduced hereinbelow:-

^^1- vk;k Áfroknh ds }kjk oknh ds i{k esa pd 6 ch ih ,e rg jk;flaguxj dk equ 119@131 dh 25 ch?kk o equ 116@31 dh 24&10 ch?kk dqy 42&10 chek dk cspku dk ,d bdjkjukek fnukad 3-1-85 dks dj bdjkjukek fd;k x;k dk cspku vius i{k esa djokus dk vf/kdkjh gSA

&oknh

2- vk;k oknh vius bdjkjukek ds fgLls dh ikyuk gsrq ges'kk rS;kj rRij o bPNqd jgk gS

& oknh

3- vk;k oknh Áfroknh ds fo:} LFkkà fu"ks/kkKk Hkh ÁkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA

& oknh

4- vk;k oknh dk okn vUnj fe;kn gSA

& Áfroknh**

6. During pendency of the suit, the respondent No.1/1-Binjha Ram, filed a compromise dated 06.02.2012 vide which, he admitted the agreement and stated that he has no objection, if half of the land is transferred in favour of petitioner, which fact was verified by the learned trial court on 15.02.2012.

7. On 22.01.2016, when the Patwari visited the land in-question for attachment in pursuance of providing the Bank Loan to the petitioner Krishan Lal, he supplied him copy of the agreement to which, the Patwari pointed out the error committed in the agreement regarding description of the property to which, he filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on 03.02.2016 seeking amendment in the pleading. The application preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 05.07.2016 on the ground that description of the property given in the plaint is in accordance with the agreement dated 03.01.1985 and there is no such clerical error.

8. After dismissal of the abovementioned application, the petitioner moved another application on 01.08.2016 under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the pleading as well as rectification in the agreement dated 03.01.1