Balbir Singh vs Gurmek Singh

Alok Singh, J.—Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 12.4.2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division,, Phillaur, thereby application moved by the Respondent under Sections 151/152/153 CPC for correction of the area of the disputed property in the judgment as well as in the plaint, was dismissed.

Undisputedly, suit for possession was filed seeking possession over the land comprising in Khasra No. 409/3, Village Umarpur, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar. Undisputedly, in the suit the revenue records were placed on record.

Undisputedly in the revenue records area of Khasra No. 409/3 is mentioned as I Kanal 12 Marla. Undisputedly total area of Khasra No. 409/3 is not 1 Kanal 2 Marla. Respondent -applicant has stated in the application for correction that due to typographical mistake, area was wrongly mentioned as 1 Kanal 2 Marla. instead of 1 Kanal 12 Marla. The trial Court while placing reliance on the revenue records has directed correction of the area in the plaint as well as in the decree.

It is not in dispute that suit of the Plaintiff was decreed for possession by the first Appellate Court and initially the Plaintiff has moved an application for correction before the first Appellate Court. However, before the first Appellate Court, Defendant -Petitioner has raised an objection that application for correction ought to have been moved before the trial Court and not before the Appellant Court and hence, the Appellate Court has directed the applicant to move application before the trial Court. Hence, the application was moved before the trial Court, which was allowed.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated that although, objection was taken by the Petitioner that the first Appellate Court ought not to have entertained the application for correction, however, the fact remains that application for correction should be moved before the Court, which has passed the decree. In view of the objection being taken by the Petitioner herein before the Appellate Court that the application should have been moved before the trial Court, now it is not open for the Petitioner to say that the application ought to have been moved before the Appellate Court.

While exercising revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot take the risk of remanding the matter to the Appellate Court to reconsider the application for correction because the result would be the same. Hence, no interference is called for with the impugned order while exercising the revisional jurisdiction.

Dismissed.