that of correct survey number, and the correction of the survey number would not affect the identity of the plot, it is a fit case ... held that:
"Where as a result of mutual mistake, a wrong plot number was inserted in the plaint, but the parties knew about
mentioned that in the
printed brochure under reserved category C, number of plots were wrongly
printed 2 instead of one and for that corrigendum ... that first reservation wise number of plots were
allotted to the reserved category and then the remaining number of plots were
allotted to the general
mentioning certain plot numbers which are stated to be
allotted to the said society. The petitioner claims that one of the plots
mentioned ... made. Besides, in view of
averments made in the petition regarding wrong plot number mentioned
in the letter, Annexure P-6 and subsequent communications
plot in dispute. The
plot was situated within the abadi deh and had not been partitioned and no
separate numbers ... been allotted to the plots and the police had wrongly
mentioned numbers of the plots as 262 and 263 in the proceedings under
petitioners stated that on the last date of
hearing, the plot number was wrongly given and they were owner of Plot
No.13 instead
favour
and on the basis of this wrong mutation they intend to
take possession of my plot. In-fact our ownership is duly
recorded ... further contended
that the petitioners are real owners of the plot of Khasra Number
18/5/3 and said situation is duly reflected
purchased by them
and by mentioning wrong khasra numbers at the time of
exchange sale deed of his plot No. 28 and 29' After ... plots No.
28 and 29 with plots Nos. 2146 and 2147 sold earlier to
complainant Harminderpal Singh and Jaswinder Kaur by
mentioning wrong khara numbers
construction of the plot,
which is wrong, illegal, null and void as the defendant never delivered the
possession of the plot of the plaintiff ... allottees of plot No.485 i.e. Plot number in
question, could not take the possession of the said plot. Therefore, it is clear that
plots were surreptitiously exchanged
with other plots by re-assigning their numbers and, thus, by
forging the records of the Society and making wrong entries
trial Court,
which are palpably wrong and against the record.
Wrong factual assessment of facts and plot number
has been made, resulting in wrong directions ... Perusal of the impugned order would show that the
plaintiff has purchased plot No.122 from Santosh Devi on
26.3.2002. Santosh Devi in her turn
