Resham Singh and Others vs Gurmukh Singh and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that the plaintiffs/petitioners No. 1 and 2 and Udham Singh (now deceased and represented by petitioner No. 3 as his legal representative) sought declaration that they and proforma defendant No. 3 (since deceased and represented by petitioners No. 4 to 7) were owners in possession of the suit land. However, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.08.2006 (Annexures P/2 and P/3) inadvertently decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs alone declaring them to be in possession of the suit land as exclusive owners, although the suit should have been decreed in favour of plaintiffs and legal representatives of Sadhu Singh proforma defendant No. 3. It is contended that application (Annexure P/4) moved by plaintiffs for correcting the aforesaid error has been dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 27.05.2009 (Annexure P/5). The said order has been challenged in the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Notice of the revision petition is not required to be issued to respondents No. 1 and 2, who were defendants No. 1 and 2 in the suit because they were proceeded ex parte in the suit and also in application Annexure P/4 moved by the plaintiffs for correction of the judgment and decree 30.08.2006(Annexures P/2 & P/3).

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.

Error in judgment and decree dated 30.08.2006 (Annexures P/2 and P/3) is apparent on record. The sale deed was in favour of plaintiffs and defendant No. 3 (represented by petitioners No. 4 to 7). The plaintiffs had also sought relief in favour of plaintiffs and proforma defendant No. 3. The trial Court inadvertently granted relief in favour of plaintiffs only, declaring them to be in possession of the suit land as exclusive owners, although relief should have been granted in favour of proforma defendant No. 3 also, as claimed by the plaintiffs themselves. There was no justification for the trial Court for not granting relief in favour of defendant No. 3, which the plaintiffs themselves pleaded in the plaint and was also established by the evidence. Consequently, inadvertent error, that crept in judgment and decree Annexures P/2 and P/3, should have been corrected by the trial Court when application Annexure P/4 was moved for necessary correction.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P/5 passed by the trial Court is set aside. Application Annexure P/4 moved by the plaintiffs is allowed. Judgment and decree dated 30.08.2006 (Annexures P/2 and P/3) passed by the trial Court are ordered to be corrected/modified to the extent that plaintiffs and legal representatives of defendant No. 3 i.e. all the petitioners herein are in possession of the suit land as owners thereof.