1980 PLP 549 (CLC)

Ss. 152 & 153 and O. VI, r. 17-Errors or omissions-Amendment Certified copy of sale deed supplied to plaintiff by office of Sub Registrar containing wrong number, namely 476 instead of correct Survey No. 276-Application for correction of error and amendment of plaint made when error detected but rejected on ground of suit having become barred by limitation when such application made- Held Area of land in suit being very well described in plaint and fact of land being pre-empted being not denied, mere writing of a wrong survey number for land in suit could not lead to inference of land having not been pre-empted and no question of limitation cropped up as such-Mistake being clerical and arithmetical, same, held further-, could be rectified at any stage of case by way of amendment.-[Amendment of plaint-Pleadings]. Syed Zain-ul-Abidin Shah Gillani for Petitioner. Respondent in person. Date of institution : 21st August, 1979. This is a revision petition against order dated 23-7-1979 of the learned Sub-Judge M'abad by which the prayer for an amendment of the plaint was refused. Mst. Miran, petitioner brought a suit of pre-emption for the land in suit which was sold by her brother to Mir Hussain respondent. The survey number of the suit land was wrongly written in the plaint as a certified copy of the sale-deed which was supplied to plaintiff by the office of the Sub-Registrar contained a wrong number namely 476 instead of correct Survey No.

276. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent were heard. The above-mentioned mistake was discovered by the counsel of the plaintiff after the submission of the written statement by the vendee-defendant. At the time the written statement was filed on 10-5-1978 it appears that it was not brought to the notice of the opposite-party. 1t was afterwards that a, remove doubt in respect of the real digit of survey, number of the land in sit, the original sale-deed was ordered by the Court to be produced by the vendee-defendant. But at the time the sale-deed in original was produced, it appears that the trial Court was not vigilant to put the parties to their statements to be made till the issues were framed on 23-12-1978. It was then after framing of the issues that application for amendment of the plaint was made on 24-12-1978 praying for rectification of survey number wrongly given in the plaint. The learned Sub-Judge did not allow this amendment so as to remove a clerical mistake having occurred in the plaint, as according to him it was sought at a delayed stage when question of limitation was also involved and as such according to him the suit was time barred. Strangely enough after having declared the suit time barred, the learned Sub-Judge still asked the plaintiff to lead evidence in support of her case. The learned Sub-Judge was .mistaken in appreciation of the circumstances of the case. The area of the land in suit was very well described in the plaint and as such it cannot be said that by writing a wrong survey number for the land in suit due to clerical as well as arithmetical mistake committed by the office o the Sub-Registrar, the land sold by Ghulam Nabi brother of the plaintiff pre-emptor was not pre-empted by the latter. There is no denial to th A fact that land sold by Ghulam Nabi in favour of Mir Hussain was pre-empted. Thus there was no question of limitation having cropped up as was wrongly apprehended by the trial Court. It was just a clerical as well as arithmetical mistake which could be rectified at any stage of the case by the petitioner by way of an amendment. Therefore, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside thereby allowing the plaintiff-petitioner to amend the plaint accordingly. The parties are directed to appear before the Court of Sub-Judge, Muzaffarabad on 1-5-11-1979. M. A. K. Revision accepted.