JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter was done through video conferencing and there was no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality.

2. The instant petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein order dated 21.01.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division)-VII, Jamshedpur in Eviction Suit no. 2/99 has been questioned whereby and whereunder the petition dated 10.12.2012 filed under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for incorporating the name of the writ petitioner in the plaint, judgment/decree, has been dismissed.

3. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, read hereunder as:

The original plaintiff-Mr. Ajay Kumar B. Amin and others filed Eviction Suit No. 2/99 for eviction of respondent no. 2, the tenant, and recovery of arrears of rent for shop bearing No. 3 and 10, located on the ground floor of the building known as “Ansuya Sadan” situated at Q-Road, Bistupur, P.S. Bistupur, Jamshedpur. The writ petitioner approached to Mr. Ajay Kumar B. Amin and others and showed his desire to purchase the land in question along with structures standing thereon. By agreement to sale both the parties entered into agreement on 05.09.2011 for transfer of the aforesaid property in favour of the present petitioner. The property in question was purchased by the petitioner vide sale deed No. 7178 dated 14.11.2011 and thereafter he came to peaceful possession of the aforesaid property.

The present petitioner being the owner of the aforesaid property filed an application before the Court below for impleading him as party in Eviction Suit No. 2/99. The Court below, after hearing both the parties, came to the conclusion that the present petitioner is the new landlord and the present Eviction Suit would be continued with original plaintiffs and also passed the order to implead the present petitioner as plaintiff along with original plaintiffs and further directed the Office to incorporate the name of the petitioner in the plaint, vide order dated 09.02.2012. The petitioner along with original plaintiff started appearing on the day to day proceeding in Eviction Suit No. 2/99 on the notion that his name has been incorporated by the office in the plaint.

The Court below, however, dismissed the Eviction Suit No. 2/99 vide order dated 21.09.2012 and thereafter, the petitioner applied for certified copy of the judgment and decree, upon receipt thereof, he came to know that his name has not been mentioned as plaintiff in the cause title of the judgment and decree.

In the backdrop of these facts, the petitioner filed a petition dated 10.12.2012 stating inter alia therein that the name of the petitioner has not been mentioned as plaintiff in the cause title of the plaint, judgment and decree passed in Eviction Suit No. 2/99, which is a clerical mistake on the part of the Office of the Court below and as such it is necessary to rectify the error arising therein from any accidental slip or omission by incorporating the name of the petitioner.

The respondent no. 2 herein filed response to the said petition on 18.12.2012.

The Court below after hearing the parties passed order dated 21.01.2013 by dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated 21.01.2013, which is under question in the present writ petition.

4. Mr. Rohitasya Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the rejection of petition filed under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure is absolutely illegal and improper in view of the fact that the impleadment of the petitioner as plaintiff along with original plaintiffs has already been ordered by the Court below vide order dated 06.02.2012 specifically directing the Office of the Court below to incorporate the name of the petitioner in the array of plaintiffs in cause title of the plaint of the Eviction Suit No. 2/99, but the office did not incorporate his name in the cause title of th