Civil Revision No. 1140 of 2008 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 1140 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 3.2.2009 Sital Singh and another ..... Petitioners vs Dewan Singh and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. H. K. Binda, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Rakesh Verma, Advocate, for respondent no. 1. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 8.11.2007 passed by the learned court below in an application filed the petitioners for correction of judgment and decree passed in their favour on 5.8.2006. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioners filed suit for declaration to the effect that they are owner in possession of land measuring 19 kanals 14 marlas, 1/3rd share of 59 kanals 12 marlas, khewat no. 61-62- 63 khatoni No. 86-87-88 khasra no. 160, 161, 162, 163, 363, 1287, 1288, 1299, 854, 856, 857, 858, 859, 865, 872, 873, 874 as entered in jamabandi for 1997-98, H.B. No. 338, situated in Village Bani, Police Station and Tehsil Anandpur Sahib. The suit was decreed on 5.8.2006. Subsequently finding that the name of the village as was mentioned in the title of the suit was wrongly typed, an application for correction of the judgment and decree dated 5.8.2006 was filed on 9.1.2007 which was dismissed by the learned court on 8.11.2007. It is this order which is impugned in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the error which occurred in the suit filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs was unintentional and was, in fact, a typing error. Otherwise at the time of filing the suit, the petitioner had given name of his village correctly as Dehni and even the respondents no. 3 to 8 also belonging to Village Dehni. It is only in the title of the suit that the name of village is mentioned as Bani though the Civil Revision No. 1140 of 2008 (2) entire particulars of the land, namely, khasra number, khewat number, khatoni number and hadbast number had been given correctly. It is only name of Village was mentioned as Bani as against Village Dehni. The application for correction thereof was filed so that they may not be deprived of the fruits of the decree passed in their favour. It was further submitted that the learned court below has committed an error in dismissing the application by holding that whatever was mentioned in the plaint has been incorporated in the decree. The submission is that even the unintentional typing mistake in plaint can very well be corrected in the decree only. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that the application should not be accepted as such at this stage after the passing of the decree as whatever has been claimed in the suit, the same was granted. The fact which was mentioned in the plaint has been correctly incorporated in the decree unless the plaint is amended, the decree cannot be corrected at this stage and after the decision, the plaint cannot be amended. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The issue was considered by this court in Civil Revision No. 1289 of 2004 Shri Jai Singh vs Sardar Singh and others decided on 21.1.2009 where for similar error in the mentioning of description of the property in the plaint, the application filed for correction was dismissed by the trial court. However, this court relying upon earlier judgments of this court in Gulzara Singh and others vs Devinder Singh and others (2004-3) PLR 330 and Mrs. Meena Kumari and another vs General Public and others (2007-3) PLR 533, accepted the petition and directed for correction of the decree. A perusal of the plaint filed by the petitioners shows that in the title of the suit, the detail of the land was mentioned by giving its khasra number, khewat knumber, khatoni number, hadbast number in terms of jamabandi for the year 1997-98. However, it was wrongly mentioned that the land is situated in Village Bani, Police Station and Tehsil Anandpur Sahib. In fact, the land is belonging to Village Dehni. Even the jamabandi is showing the correct name of the village. As other particulars mentioned in the plaint are correct and there is no dispute about that, merely because while typing wrong name of the village has been mentioned will not deprive Civil Revision No. 1140 of 2008 (3) the petitioners of the fruits of the decree passed in their favour on account of unintentional or accidental error in the plaint. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 8.11.2007 is set aside. The decree passed on 5.8.2006 in favour of the petitioners is amended to the extent that the name of the Village Bani be read as Village Dehni. 3.2.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge