Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Miscellaneous No.278/C of 1985, in Regular First Appeal No.75 of 1979, decided on 23rd February, 1986.
‑‑‑Ss. 151, 152, 153 a O. VI, R. 17‑‑Amendment in judgment Omission in plaint due to inadvertent mistake‑‑Rectification of Inherent jurisdiction of High Court, exercise of‑‑Total area of land agreed to be sold was correctly mentioned in plaint filed by plaintiffs in suit for specific performance of agreement of such land, but while giving details of land, plaintiffs by mistake omitted to mention certain Killa numbers forming part of land‑‑Due to such omission decree‑sheet was also prepared by Court without such Kills, numbers‑‑Omission of disputed Killa numbers in plaint due to inadvertent mistake of plaintiffs, held, could be rectified by High Court even after disposal of appeal by exercising inherent jurisdiction under 5.151, C.P.C.‑‑Plaintiffs' request for amendment of plaint and correction of decree‑sheet was allowed in circumstances.
Bashir Hussain Khalid for Petitioners.
Khan Muhammad Virk for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 23rd February, 1986.
.‑‑The present application under sections 151 and 153, C.P.C. has been filed on behalf of Karam Din, Eid Muhammad and Muhammad Yunus for amendment of decree passed by this Court in R.F.A. No.75 of 1979 so that omission in the decree sheet regarding land comprising Killa Nos. 21 and 22 of square No.18 may be rectified. The above omission, according to the petitioners, was the result of an inadvertent mistake committed at the time of drafting of the plaint. The petitioners have also sought permission to amend the plaint so as to incorporate the aforementioned particulars of the land.
2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that Karam Din petitioner and his deceased brother Taj Din entered into an agreement with the respondents on 28‑7‑1977 to purchase land measuring 222 Kanals and 15 Marlas situated in village Ghazi Androon, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura, which the respondents had purchased by means of mutation No.93 dated 26‑6‑1972 for rupees one lac. On refusal of the respondents to execute the requisite sale deed, suit for specific performance of the aforementioned agreement was instituted by Karam Din and Taj Din deceased which was contested by the respondents and was ultimately dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge on 25‑1‑1979. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge were challenged in appeal. During pendency of the appeal, the parties effected a compromise as a result of which the appeal was accepted and the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell was decreed on 16‑2‑1981. In the decree sheet, prepared after acceptance of the appeal, area of the land, which was subject matter of the agreement to sell, was stated correctly, but while giving details of the land Kills, Nos. 21 and 22 of square No.18, which also form apart of the transaction, were omitted in the decree sheet. The above omission was due to the fact that in the plaint Kills. Nos. 21 and 22 of square No.18 were not mentioned. Karam Din and legal representatives of his brother Taj Din deceased have sought rectification of the above mistake in the plaint and the decree sheet.
3. The respondents have opposed the petitioners' application and the learned counsel appearing on their behalf has submitted that the decree sheet has been correctly prepared by the office on the basis of the particulars of the land given in the plaint. Amendment of the plaint at this stage should not be allowed because dispute between the parties has been finally resolved by acceptance of the petitioners' appeal.
4. Admittedly the suit for possession of land through specific performance of agreement to sell executed by the respondents was in respect of land measuring 222 Kanals 15 Marlas. There is also no controversy that the aforementioned land was purchased by the respondents by means of mutation No.93. Reference to the aforementioned mutation has also been made in the decree sheet. A copy of the mutation filed by the petitioners along with their application shows that land comprising Killa Nos.21 and 22 of square No.18 was included in the land purchased by the respendents. Area of Killa Nos.21 and 22 of square No.18 is 16 Kanals. If this land is excluded, the total area of the land purchased by the respondents and agreed to be sold to Karam Din and Taj Din deceased would fall short by sixteen Kanals. Thus omission of two Killa numbers in the plaint, referred to above, was due to inadvertent mistake, which can be rectified by this Court even after disposal of the appeal by exercising inherent jurisdiction under section 151 C . P. C After amendment of the plaint, it would be necessary to prepare fresh decree sheets, which of course would include the missing Kills numbers of square No.18. We accordingly allow the petitioners' request for amendment of the plaint and correction of the decree sheet, as made by them in the petition.
H.B.T./K‑5/L Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer