The court affirmed the necessity to correct typographical errors in pleadings to facilitate justice, maintaining jurisdiction for amendments, even post-final decree, under the Code of Civil Procedure.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 18-03-2025

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Despite valid service of notice, none has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 05.09.2018 passed by the learned Munsif, Begusarai in Misc. Case No. 02 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned Munsif has rejected the aforesaid miscellaneous case filed on behalf of the plaintiff/petitioner under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) to review the order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the learned Munsif, Begusarai in Title Eviction Suit No. 07 of 2009 whereby and whereunder amendment petition dated 02.12.2016 filed on behalf of the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 152 of the Code has been rejected. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 28.11.2017.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff/petitioner filed Title Eviction Suit No. 07 of 2009 on 27.06.2009 before the learned trial court against the defendant/respondent for a decree of eviction with respect to the suit land mentioned in Schedule 1 of the plaint as well as other reliefs. In the aforesaid title eviction suit, summons were issued to the defendant/respondent by the learned trial court, but he did not appear even after receipt of summons. Thereafter, registered notice was also issued to the defendant/respondent and even substituted service by way of publication through newspaper has been made for appearance of the defendant/respondent in the suit, but he did not appear, as such, the said eviction suit was fixed for ex-parte hearing by the learned trial court. Thereafter, the learned Munsif vide judgment dated 02.02.2011 and decree dated 18.02.2011 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner against the defendant/respondent with direction to the defendant/respondent to vacate the suit premises within sixty days and also to hand over the delivery of possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/petitioner and the reliefs sought for by the plaintiff/petitioner with regard to arrears of rent of the suit premises mentioned in Schedule-II of the plaint has been discarded by the learned trial court.

Learned counsel further submits that when the defendant/respondent/judgment debtor did not comply the direction of the learned trial court passed in the judgment dated 02.02.2011 and decree dated 18.02.2011, the plaintiff/decree- holder/petitioner filed Title Execution Case No. 08 of 2011 before the learned trial court on 25.06.2011 for execution of the decree dated 18.02.2011 passed in Eviction Suit No. 07 of 2009. Thereafter, the learned executing court proceeded with the execution case and even after issuance of summons, notices and substituted service of notice by way of publication through newspaper, the defendant/judgment debtor/respondent did not appear in the execution proceeding. Accordingly, the execution case was fixed for ex-parte hearing vide order dated 03.06.2013. Thereafter, on 22.06.2013, the judgment debtor/respondent appeared in Execution Case No. 08 of 2011 and filed a petition under Order 21 Rule 106 r/w Section 151 of the Code and another petition under Order 21 Rule 26 & 29 r/w Section 151 of the Code to object the execution proceeding. After hearing the parties, the aforesaid both petitions were dismissed by the learned executing court vide order dated 27.11.2015. Thereafter, the learned executing court issued writ of delivery of possession after depositing cost etc. by the decree holder/petitioner in th