Minor clerical errors in legal documents should not lead to unnecessary litigation or the requirement of succession certificates, as they can be corrected to ensure justice.

ORDER :

This case is yet another personification of how important the punctuations are in the legal proceedings.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 26/10/2023, passed by Second Additional District Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, District Indore (M.P.) in case No.X/MJC/15/22 whereby the petitioners’ application under Section 151 and 152 of CPC for correction of typographical mistake has been rejected.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that petitioners No.1 to 4 are sons and petitioner No.5 is wife of Late Kadir, R/o: Village Mahudia Bujurg, Tehsil Mhow, District Indore. Admittedly, the land belonging to Kadir was acquired by respondent No.1 Union of India in 1989, and the award was passed on 31/12/1988. The reference regarding which u/s.18 was filed by the petitioners on 02/03/1989, under the signatures of all the petitioners namely 1.Aavesh, 2.Sajjad Hussain, 3.Anas and 4.Mehmood and 5. Hurbano, however, on account of a minor clerical error on the part of counsel appearing for the petitioners in the aforesaid proceedings, he, by mistake, mentioned the names of the petitioners as Aavesh, Sajjad, Hussain, Anas, Mehmood S/o Kadir and Hurbano Bai wife of Kadir. Thus, in the name of Sajjad Hussain a comma has been erroneously inserted by the counsel, making it two persons, Sajjad and Hussain.

3. Thereafter, the award was passed on 19/01/2015, in which, instead of five persons, it was passed in favour of six persons, mentioning Hussain S/o Kadir as one of the applicants. Thus, the application came to be filed by the petitioners under Section 151 and 152 of CPC for correction of the cause title of the award and deletion of name of Hussain S/o Kadir, however, the aforesaid application has been rejected by the learned Judge of the reference Court vide order dated 26/10/2023, holding that the application u/s.18 was filed on behalf of six persons and not by five, hence, it cannot be said in this proceeding that there is no person by the name of Hussain S/o Kadir, and in this regard, the petitioners have also not filed any succession certificate that they are only successor of the deceased Kadir and the land in question.

4. Shri Jitendra Verma, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was only a minor mistake on the part of the counsel for the petitioner which has led them to file the present petition. Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Aadhar Card, Voter I.D. Card of the petitioner Sajjad (Hussain) as also the Khasra entry of the aforesaid land, in which the name of Sajjad is also mentioned as Sajjad Hussain. Thus, it is submitted that there was no reason for the petitioners to file the application under Section 18 by referring Sajjad and Hussain as a separate persons. Counsel has submitted that all the petitioners have also filed their affidavits that there is no such persons by the name of Hussain S/o Kadir, and in-fact the name of Sajjad is Sajjad Hussain. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned

order be set aside, and in the award dated 19/01/2015, the name of Hussain S/o Kadir be directed to be deleted and the amount may be directed to be released to the present petitioners only.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have submitted that looking to the fact and circumstances of the case, appropriate orders may be passed.

6. Heard. Having considered the submissions and on perusal of the documents filed on record, this Court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that there is no such person by the name of Hussain S/o Kadirm and in fact the name of Sajjad is actually Sajjad Hussain only which is also reflected in cause title of the present petition as well. It is also found that in the revenue record, the name of petitioner No.2 is mentioned as Sajjad Hussain only, and there is no Comma between Sajjad and Hussain depicting them are two different persons. Apart from that, the affidavits have also been sworn by all