Civil Revision No. 1140 of 2008

(1)

In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

Civil Revision No. 1140 of 2008 (O&M)

Date of decision : 3.2.2009

Sital Singh and another

..... Petitioners

vs

Dewan Singh and others

..... Respondents

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

Present:

Mr. H. K. Binda, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Rakesh Verma, Advocate, for respondent no. 1.

Rajesh Bindal J.

Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 8.11.2007

passed by the learned court below in an application filed the petitioners for

correction of judgment and decree passed in their favour on 5.8.2006.

Briefly, the facts are that the petitioners filed suit for

declaration to the effect that they are owner in possession of land measuring

19 kanals 14 marlas, 1/3^rd share of 59 kanals 12 marlas, khewat no. 61-62-

63 khatoni No. 86-87-88 khasra no. 160, 161, 162, 163, 363, 1287, 1288,

1299, 854, 856, 857, 858, 859, 865, 872, 873, 874 as entered in jamabandi

for 1997-98, H.B. No. 338, situated in Village Bani, Police Station and

Tehsil Anandpur Sahib. The suit was decreed on 5.8.2006. Subsequently

finding that the name of the village as was mentioned in the title of the suit

was wrongly typed, an application for correction of the judgment and decree

dated 5.8.2006 was filed on 9.1.2007 which was dismissed by the learned

court on 8.11.2007. It is this order which is impugned in the present

petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the error

which occurred in the suit filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs was

unintentional and was, in fact, a typing error. Otherwise at the time of filing

the suit, the petitioner had given name of his village correctly as Dehni and

even the respondents no. 3 to 8 also belonging to Village Dehni. It is only in

the title of the suit that the name of village is mentioned as Bani though the

Civil Revision No. 1140 of 2008

(2)

entire particulars of the land, namely, khasra number, khewat number,

khatoni number and hadbast number had been given correctly. It is only

name of Village was mentioned as Bani as against Village Dehni. The

application for correction thereof was filed so that they may not be deprived

of the fruits of the decree passed in their favour. It was further submitted

that the learned court below has committed an error in dismissing the

application by holding that whatever was mentioned in the plaint has been

incorporated in the decree. The submission is that even the unintentional

typing mistake in plaint can very well be corrected in the decree only.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1

submitted that the application should not be accepted as such at this stage

after the passing of the decree as whatever has been claimed in the suit, the

same was granted. The fact which was mentioned in the plaint has been

correctly incorporated in the decree unless the plaint is amended, the decree

cannot be corrected at this stage and after the decision, the plaint cannot be

amended.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The issue was considered by this court in Civil Revision No.

1289 of 2004 Shri Jai Singh vs Sardar Singh and others decided on

21.1.2009 where for similar error in the mentioning of description of the

property in the plaint, the application filed for correction was dismissed by

the trial court. However, this court relying upon earlier judgments of this

court in Gulzara Singh and others vs Devinder Singh and others (2004-3)

PLR 330 and Mrs. Meena Kumari and another vs General Public and

others (2007-3) PLR 533, accepted the petition and directed for correction

of the decree.

A perusal of the plaint filed by the petitioners shows that in the

title of the suit, the detail of the land was mentioned by giving its khasra

number, khewat knumber, khatoni number, hadbast number in terms of

jamabandi for the year 1997-98. However, it was wrongly mentio