Punjab-Haryana High Court
Man Singh Son Of Shri Amin Lal Son Of Shri ... vs Ram Saroop Son Of Shri Hardayal Son Of ... on 13 September, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.3709 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision: 13.09.2013
Man Singh son of Shri Amin Lal son of Shri Dhanpat Beniwal,
resident of Jagdambe Colony, Gali No.11, House No.B-20/327/10
(Street Hanuman Foundary), Begu Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District
Sirsa.
....Petitioner.
Versus
Ram Saroop son of Shri Hardayal son of Shri Girdhari, resident of
Preet Nagar, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. B.S. Mittal, Advocate,
for the respondent.
----
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
1. The revision is against the order passed by the trial Court making an amendment of the decree of the plaint by including a reference to Khasra No.11/1 (min), the detail which had been omitted in the plaint and, therefore, ordered to be included.
2. The counsel for the petitioner would contend that the application for amendment filed under Sections 151 to 153 did not contain a prayer for amendment of the plaint but the Court has ordered the amendment even without prayer therefor. I have elicited Kumar Sanjeev 2013.09.17 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No.3709 of 2010 (O&M) -2- from the learned counsel that the suit for specific performance was based on a written agreement which makes reference to Khasra No.11/1 (min). The counsel also admits that there was no dispute about the identity of the property in suit although the Khasra Number had not been stated in the plaint. There was no suggestion or even a discussion in the judgment that would make possible an inference that the plaintiff was giving up his right with reference to the property in Khasra No.11/1 (min). If the suit was being decreed for specific performance of an agreement, it ought to mean that the Court was allowing for enforcement of agreement in relation to the property which the agreement provided for. If the decree was, therefore, passed and had incorporated the same description as found in the plaint with its omission of reference to Khasra No.11/1 (min), it must be only taken as an accidental omission. If the plaintiff had not sought specifically for a prayer for amending the plaint, then it must only be taken that the Court while entertaining the application for amendment of a decree under Sections 152 and 153 has also an inherent power under Section 151 to incorporate an amendment in the plaint, as well, so long as it was not introducing a new property which the parties were litigating on. An execution process is invariably in Indian situation the beginning of a new round of litigation. It behoves of the Court to ensure that a decree is to be enforced in letter and spirit and the Court does every thing Kumar Sanjeev 2013.09.17 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No.3709 of 2010 (O&M) -3- which is incidental to make it effective. If the decree, therefore, contained an omission to make reference to Khasra No.11/1 (min), the obvious culmination of such decree being the execution of sale deed would suffer a serious setback even at the Registrar's office which cannot register a document without reference to a specific identity of property with reference to the khasra number. The identity of property before a Registrar for the purpose of revenue with reference to the circle rates specified for villages is invariably with particular reference to Khasra numbers. It would, therefore, be essential to have the reference to Khasra Number properly made. It is not as if there is an advantage which the plaintiff is getting for the first time through this amendment. The advantage that he has got was after a full-fledged litigation of securing a decree. If that decree would require a correction for what it obviously omits to make, it is bound to be done. This is precisely what the trial Court has done and I find nothing arbitrary or erroneous for an interference in revision.
3. The order is maintained and the revision is dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 13.09.2013 sanjeev Kumar Sanjeev 2013.09.17 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh