Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 354

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Alka Sarin, J.
Kaur Singh – Appellant
Versus
Manohar Singh – Respondent
CR No.5425 of 2019
Decided On : 28-07-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Himanshu Chhabra, Advocate for Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate for the respondent, for the Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is that errors arising from accidental slips or omissions in the plaint can be rectified under Section 152 of the CPC, especially when the correction does not introduce new claims or properties not already in the suit.

Headnote:
Correction - Civil Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 151, Section 152
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a revision petition seeking to set aside an order dismissing an application for correction of the plaint under Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC. The petitioner argued that a Khasra number was inadvertently omitted from the original plaint, which was crucial for the suit.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Khasra number in question was mentioned in the agreement to sell, and its inclusion was necessary to accurately represent the total suit land. The court referred to relevant case laws and held that an error arising from an accidental slip or omission in the plaint can be rectified under Section 152 of the CPC.
Issues: The main issue was whether the correction of the plaint under Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC was permissible.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that a mistake arising from an accidental slip or omission in the plaint can be rectified under Section 152 of the CPC, especially when the correction does not introduce a new claim or property not already in the suit.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dismissing the application for correction of the plaint under Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. (Oral). - The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 16.08.2019 whereby the Trial Court has dismissed an application filed under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') for correction of the plaint.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that inadvertently Khasra No.30 of Khata No.181/197 was not mentioned in the original plaint at the time of filing of the suit for specific performance. On the basis of pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 08.08.2017. Appeal preferred by the defendant-respondent was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 19.07.2018. It is further the contention that it is only at the time of execution of the decree that it came to the notice of the petitioner that Khasra No.30 of Khata No.181/197 had inadvertently not been mentioned in the plaint.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said Khasra No.30 of Khata No.181/197 stands duly mentioned in the agreement to sell dated 01.12.2010. It has further been pointed out that even in the impugned order dated 16.08.2019, it has been noticed that Khasra No.30 of Khata No.181/197 finds mention in the agreement to sell dated 01.12.2010.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in cases of Sampuran Singh (deceased) through LRs vs. Satbir Singh and Ors. [2019(1) CivCC 42]; Kulwinder Kaur vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. [2016(2) RCR (Civil) 908]; Pradeep Kapoor vs. Laxmi Narain Kapoor & Ors. [2011(6) RCR (Civil) 2102]; Saudagar Singh vs. Amir Singh & Ors. [2009(4) RCR (Civil) 638] and Mohinder Singh & Ors. vs. Teja Singh & Ors. [1978 PLR 728] to contend that an error arising out of an accidental slip or omission in the plaint can be rectified under Section 152 CPC.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that correction cannot be carried out in the plaint under Sections 151/152 CPC.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. In the present case, as noticed in the impugned order, Khasra No.30 of Khata No.181/197 finds mention in the agreement to sell dated 01.12.2010. However, due to an inadvertent omission the said Khasra number was not mentioned in the plaint. The total area qua which the suit was filed was 1 Bigha 9 Biswas and 17 Biswansis. The suit was filed qua the following land :

(i) Land measuring 0B-4B-7B, Khata No.118/134, Khasra No.670 (2-0-0), 671 (2-0-0),

(ii) Land measuring 0B-1B-10B, having 30/800 share of 2B- 0B-0B, Khata No.121/137, Khasra No.878 (2-0-0),

(iii) Land measuring 0B-1B-12B, having 32/240 share from 0B-12B, Khata No.124/140, Khasra No.677 (0-12-0),

(iv) Land measuring 0B-9B-1B, having 181/300 share from 0B-15B-0B, Khata No.179/195, Khasra No.40 (0-15-0),

(v) Land measuring 0B-4B-0B, having 88/3133 share from 7B-16B-13B, Khata No.181/197, Khasra No.29 (2-0-0), 38 (2-0-0), 44 (1-16-13),

(vi) Land measuring 0B-9B-7B, having 187/1798 share from 4B-9B-18B, Khata No.115/131, Khasra No.652 (1-16-5), 654 (1-14-18), 655 (0-18-15), as per jamabandi for the year 2007-08 situated in village Dudhaal, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana.

8. If Khasra No.30 of Khata no.181/197 is added only then the total of the suit land would come to 1 Bigha 9 Biswas and 17 Biswansis.

9. In the case of Saudagar Singh (supra), it has been held as under :

'5. A Full Bench of this Court had actually dealt with a situation where the amendment was sought at lower Appellate Court when the matter had earlier been dismissed on merits by the High Court. The decision was Dayawanti Vs. Yadvindra Public School 1996(1) RRR 111 in which Full Bench was answering a reference of the power of a lower court to entertain an application for amendment when the case had been concluded in the higher forum. The mistake in the order of District Court was pointed out by the High Court under two circumst

Click Here to Read the rest of this document