Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"It is well settled that the provisions of the Code are not exhaustive, for the simple reason that the Legislature is incapable of contemplating all the possible circumstances which may arise in future litigating and consequently for providing the procedure for them."

14. Before concluding his argument Mr. Mukherjee submitted that by mistake in some portion in the body of the plaint as well as in the prayer portion of the plaint plot numbers of the land of the petitioner has been wrongly quoted. But those have been rectified on 28th May, 2016 by the concerned Court below thereby allowing the amendment application. Therefore this Court should review/modify its order dated 26th September, 2016 as the entire episode has now been brought before this Hon'ble Court in the present review application.

(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review."

Decision with Reasons

23. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and after perusing the records and the decisions cited above I find that due to inadvertence and bonafide mistake on the part of the learned Advocate who was conducting the suit pending before Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Jalpaiguri the Plot numbers 241 (Part) and 245 (Part) were wrongly mentioned in the body of the plaint in Title suit no. 52 of 2006 as well as in the Schedule of the plaint which was subsequently corrected on 28th September, 2016 when the amendment petition was allowed by the Learned Trial Court after the order passed by the Hon'ble Court on 26th September, 2016.

26. In my view Courts have to render substantial justice to the parties to avoid further litigation. If it is found that by mistake wrong plot numbers as well as J.L. number have been mentioned in the body and the Schedule of the said plaint the Court in order to sub-serve the ends of justice has ample power under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to rectify such mistake committed inadvertently in the body of the plaint as well as the schedule of the plaint.

27. In my considered view if the order dated 26th September, 2016 is allowed to remain unaltered and/or not modified then the subsequent order passed by the Learned Court below on 28th September, 2016 would be rendered infractuous. Furthermore, if the order on 26th September, 2016 is allowed to be acted upon then the inadvertent mistake committed at the time of filing the said suit will stand accepted and binding on the parties though admittedly those mistake in the suit has been subsequently corrected on amendment by the Learned Court below vide its order dated 28th September, 2016.

Therefore, in my opinion the present application warrants that the order dated 26th September, 2016 should be recalled.

28. Accordingly, the order dated 26th September, 2016 passed in W.P No. 3287 (W) of 2011 (Robin Commodeal Pvt. Ltd & Another Vs Andhra Bank & Ors) is hereby recalled.

29. Now I have to deal with the decisions cited by Mr. Mantha. The facts of case in K.K. Velusamy Case (supra) and the facts of the present case is completely different. In that cited case after filing of the suit written statement was filed,therefore, both parties lead evidence. Thereafter at argument stage the appellant filed two applications under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code with a prayer to re-open the evidence for the purpose of further cross-examination of the plaintiff no.1 and the plaintiff no.2 but in the present case by inadvertent and bona fide mistake at the time of filing the suit wrong quoting of plot numbers as well as J.L. number were quoted which was amended by the concerned Learned Court vide order dated 28th September, 2016 subsequently passed after disposal of the writ petition on 26th September, 2016. That fact was brought by the petitioner by filing the present review application. Therefore, the cited case in K.K. Velusamy case (supra) may be a good one in the facts and circumstances of that case but it has no application in the present case.