IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1444 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision:29.10.2009 Iqbal Singh ...Petitioner versus Smt. Deepo and another ...Respondents 2. Civil Revision No.1667 of 1998 Iqbal Singh ....Petitioner versus S. Baldev Singh and others ...Respondents. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S.Jaswal, Advocate, for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) CM No.6640 & 6633-CII of 2009 For the reasons stated in the applications, the writ petitions are ordered to be restored in its original numbers. Applications are allowed. Civil Revision Nos.1444 and 1667 of 1998 1. Both the civil revisions are between the same parties and involve common questions of fact and law and therefore, they are heard and disposed of together. Civil Revision No.1444 of 1998 (O&M) - 2 - 2. Civil Revision No.1444 of 1998 is against an order rejecting an application for amendment to the plaint. A decree had been already passed and the petition was for correcting the name of Iqbal Singh described as son of Sardool Singh, when according to the petitioner, Iqbal Singh was the brother of Sardool Singh and not the son of Sardool Singh. Iqbal Singh's father was Balwant Singh and therefore, the correct description ought to have 'Iqbal Singh son of Balwant Singh'. Since the mistake with reference to description of the party had crept into the plaint, it got transported into the decree as well. The mistake was known, according to the petitioner, only at the time when execution petition was required to be filed. At that time, an application for amendment of the decree was filed before the Executing Court. The application had been allowed against which the judgment debtor had come on revision and this Court by the order in Civil Revision No.1450 of 1991 held that an Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and it did not have the power to amend the description of parties found in the decree. It stated that any amendment would have to be made in the plaint which alone could be incorporated in the decree and accordingly, with such observation allowed the civil revision filed by the judgment debtor. It was after the disposal of the civil revision on 16.02.1994 that a fresh application came to be filed before the lower Court on its trial side for amendment of the plaint. 3. The suit was for specific performance and the agreement entered into between the parties was the basis on which the trial was undertaken and decree was passed. The agreement admittedly contained Civil Revision No.1444 of 1998 (O&M) - 3- reference to names of parties and Iqbal Singh had been described as son of Balwant Singh. Mistake had taken place only in the plaint and such an obvious mistake was bound to be corrected when it was brought to the attention of the Court. The fact that the order was passed by this Court allowing the civil revision did not conclude all matters in relation to the necessity for an amendment nor did it take away the right of the party to take an amendment where the situation so warranted. It is unusual that the judgment debtor, who was a party to the agreement and who had suffered a decree should contend for a position that Iqbal Singh, who was but a brother of Sardool Singh, must only be described as son of Sardool Singh. The amendment was even inconsequential in one sense, for, it was not in any way substituting the identity of one person for another. It was an obvious mistake which was required to be corrected and that was what was sought. The dismissal of the application by the Court below was clearly wrong. The attempt of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent was to show that the plaint would require to be seen and if the plaintiffs had committed a mistake in the plaint, it cannot be corrected now. I state this objection only to be rejected outright, as without any merit. I see this only to be a ploy to defeat the lawful execution of a Court endlessly. The dismissal of the application before the Court below was bound to be set aside and the Civil Revision No.1444 of 1998 is, accordingly, allowed with cost assessed at Rs.3,000/-. 4. As regards Civil Revision No.1667 of 1998, it is against a dismissal of an application for amendment of the plaint where the Civil Revision No.1444 of 1998 (O&M) - 4 - plaintiff had described the second defendant Iqbal Singh as son of Sardool Singh. The defendant can only state in defence that such description was wrong. He cannot move an application for amendment of a plaint which only the plaintiff shall be competent to make. The defendant shall have no occasion to touch the plaint for any kind of correction. The application moved for amendment of the plaint by the defendant was a complete mistaken approach. The Court would have, however, the power at any time to direct an amendment with reference to description of parties. The trial Court itself shall examine it and may if necessary frame an issue for consideration whether the description of the second defendant is correct or not. Again I have not heard the arguments with reference to whether such a misdescription of the second defendant will have any bearing to consideration of the merits of the case. It shall ultimately be decided only by the trial Court . I would not see any requirement for permitting the defendant to move an application for amendment of the plaint. The Civil Revision No.1667 of 1998 is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) 29.10.2009 JUDGE sanjeev