CR-2092-2017(O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR-2092-2017(O&M)

Date of decision:-20.1.2023

Vikram Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Rugha @ Raghubir and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN

Present:

Mr.Virendra Rana, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate

for respondent No.1.

****

H.S. MADAAN, J.

1.

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Rugha @

Raghubir had brought a suit against defendants Mohab Singh and others

seeking a declaration that he is owner in possession of the agricultural

land to the extent of 1/9^th share in the estate of deceased Phool Singh,

whereas remaining land is owned and possessed by defendants in different

shares and that defendants No.1 to 3 have no right to succeed on the basis

of Will dated 28.6.2000 besides seeking relief of permanent injunction.

2.

After contest that suit was decreed by the trial Court.

Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under under Sections 151 and

152 CPC praying for amendment of plaint as well as decree-sheet

contending that inadvertently in the head-note of the plaint, the shares of

some of the defendants have been wrongly mentioned on account of

BRIJ MOHAN

2023.01.24 17:42

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment,

HIgh Court, Chandigarh

CR-2092-2017(O&M)

-2-

wrong numbering and the error happened to be clerical in nature not

affecting the rights of parties, therefore necessary amendment be allowed.

3.

Notice of the application was given to the defendants.

Defendants No.1 to 3, who had contested the suit appeared and opposed

the application contending that the same was not maintainable since the

civil suit has already been decided, therefore, the application be

dismissed.

4.

After hearing the counsel for the parties, the application was

allowed by the trial Court of Additional Civil Judge(Sr.Divn.), Tosham

vide order dated 4.1.2017. For ready reference, the operative part of the

order is being reproduced as under:

“The suit was filed by the plaintiff stating to effect that

one Phool Singh was the owner of the suit property and he left

behind nine legal heirs namely the plaintiff, defendant No.1, 2, 3,

17, 18 and Bhanwar Bai, Santosh Devi and Guddi Devi. The

plaintiff claimed to be the owner of 1/9^th portion of the property

being one of the nine legal heirs of Phool Singh and his suit was

eventually decreed vide judgment dated 19.11.2016 and the

plaintiff was held entitled to 1/9^th share in the estate of Phool Singh.

The claim of the plaintiff is to the effect the however in the head

note of the plaint the shares of the parties have inadvertently been

wrongly mentioned because of clerical mistake in numbering. He

has stated that his intention was to claim 1/9^th share for himself

while he had intended to state that defendant No.1, 2, 3, 17 and 18

were entitled to 1/9^th share each while defendant No.4 to 8 being

BRIJ MOHAN

2023.01.24 17:42

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment,

HIgh Court, Chandigarh

CR-2092-2017(O&M)

-3-

LRs of Bhanwar Bai were collectively entitled to 1/9 share of

Santosh Devi and defendant No.12 to 16 were entitled to 1/9 share

of Guddi Devi. The said mistake from the perusal of the file

happens to be clerical mistake which has occurred because of

wrong numbering of the parties in the head note of the plaint and

because of this the mistake has been carried forward in the decree

sheet also.

If the present application is allowed no injustice shall

be caused to any of the parties and it will only clarify the existing

position and will remove unwarranted doubts which have crept into

the decree. Furthermore it will not affect the share of any of the

parties adversely because the suit was decreed only qua the share

of the plaintiff and no declaration was made qua the share of the

defendants.

As far as the contention of the defendant to the effect

that the application cannot