Pal Singh vs Shiv Singh and Others

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated

18.09.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala, whereby the application of the respondents No. 1 and 2/plaintiffs for

amendment of the plaint, has been allowed. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that respondents No. 1

and 2/plaintiffs are joint owners in exclusive possession of suit land measuring 24 kanals by virtue of sale deeds dated 12.08.2004 and

13.06.2005. Thereafter, respondents No. 1 and 2/plaintiffs moved an application that total land is 49 kanals and 4 marlas and following

amendment was sought:-

That due to inadvertence and typing mistake in the heading of the plaint, in the para No. 5 as well as in the prayer clause of the plaint the plaintiff

has mentioned that the plaintiffs are in joint possession as bona fide owners of the suit land measuring 24 kanals whereas the plaintiffs are the co-

owners of the suit land measuring 49 K 4 Marlas which is the subject matter of the above said sale deed dated 5.6.1981, 18.12.1981, 12.8.2004

and 13.6.2005.

That in para. No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the plaint the plaintiffs have already mentioned the purchase of the land vide different sale deeds in their favor

alongwith their brothers Kunan Singh, Puran Singh and Darshan Singh. The total area of the sale deeds mentioned in the above paras of the plaint

comes to 49 Kanals 4 Marlas. The plaintiffs due to inadvertence could not write the total area of their ownership in the joint land. That the plaintiffs

have also mentioned at the end of the para. No. 5 of the plaint that ""Therefore the plaintiffs are co-owners co sharers in the total land 49 K-4

Marlas whereas the plaintiffs are in exclusive possession of over 24 Kanals mentioned above.

Petitioners filed reply to the said application submitting that plaintiffs were not diligent in instituting the suit. Therefore, they cannot be allowed to

amend the plaint and had made reference to the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Ajendraprasadji N. Pande and Another Vs. Swami

Keshavprakeshdasji N. and Others, and Mashyak Grihnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Vs. Usman Habib Dhuka and Others, . Emphasis in the

reply was that amendment cannot be allowed if it is belated one and is after thought or the obvious purpose to avert the inevitable consequence.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that total land in both the sale deeds come out to 24 kanals. Learned counsel for the petitioner

contends that since the amendment is at a highly belated stage, same cannot be permitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the

judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in J. Samuel and Others Vs. Gattu Mahesh and Others, to contend that this is not a typographical mistake

rather the plaintiffs intentionally mentioned the land as 24 kanals in original plaint.

I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.

There is no dispute as to the proposition of law laid down in J. Samuel and others (supra), however, the amendment was sought at time of

judgment and there was omission of 3 to 4 sentences, regarding that objection was taken in the written statement but no amendment was made. In

the instant case, no objection was taken in the written statement. The amendment is only for correction of typographical error i.e. figures.

Otherwise also, it will not change the nature of the suit. By way of amendment plaintiffs wanted to mention the land as 49 kanals 4 marlas instead

of 24 kanals out of which they are claiming to be in exclusive possession of 24 kanals of land. The amendment is clarificatory in nature.

So far as the contention the learned counsel for the petitioner that amendment is at the fag end, cannot be accepted as the amendment is only

clarificatory in nature. In view of above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

Dismissed.