Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

iv) An application was moved by the petitioner under Section 151, 152 and 153 of CPC to amend and correct the error occurred in the site plan annexed with the decree and relied upon by the petitioner during the proceedings of the suit was dismissed by the Learned ADJ vide order dated 10th October, 2012.

v) The petitioner contended in the application that he took the possession and placed lock on the door of the premises. It was contended that on his visit to the suit premises after 2-3 months, the lock had been replaced and the notice had been affixed at the door of the premises to the effect that Indu Parwanda was the decree holder of the suit premises. It was contended that on enquiry flat was actually No.201 and not No.204 as per sanctioned plan of DDA. It was further contended that the actual owner of the flat No. 201 was Indu Parwanda who had also filed suit against the respondent seeking possession of this flat, had executed decree and accordingly, took possession of the flat. It was contended that he took possession of the suit premises in good faith and under the impression that same was flat no.204 and the respondent was fully aware that they were handing over the wrong flat.