CR No. 2367 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CR No. 2367 of 2011 Date of decision: 7.4.2011. Paramjit Singh and others ..................Petitioners v. Dalbara Singh etc. ............... Respondent. Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present:- Mr.R.K.Singla,Advocate for the petitioners. Jaswant Singh,J.(Oral) Defendants 1 to 4/ petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 21.3.2011 (P7) whereby on the application under Section 151 CPC of the plaintiff, missing page no.12 of the original plaint has been permitted to be taken on record. It is submitted that the defendants/petitioners had filed an application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on three grounds namely (i) that page no. 12 of the plaint was missing (ii) required court fees has not been affixed and (iii) lack of jurisdiction since part of the property is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. During the pendency of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the respondents/plaintiffs moved an application under Section 151 CPC for supplying/ furnishing page no. 12 of the plaint which has been allowed and hence the present revision petition. It is stated that the plaintiffs (respondents 1 to 3) and defendants are lineal descendants of a common ancestor and there was a dispute with regard to the properties which were ancestral as well as some land has been purchased out of funds of joint Hindu Family. Accordingly, the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 3 filed a suit for declaration that they are joint owners in possession in equal shares of the stated properties situated at different places including one in District Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh, with consequential relief of CR No. 2367 of 2011 2 permanent injunction. The sole argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that learned trial court could not have decided the application under Section 151 CPC without simultaneously deciding their application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as that would prejudice the subsequent decision of their application. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners I find that the contention being raised is totally devoid of any merits. The learned trial court in exercise of its inherent powers and to meet the ends of justice has permitted correction of inadvertent mistake in non-filing of page no. 12 of the original plaint, after satisfying itself that the duplicate plaint did contain the page no.12. While doing so, the defendants have also been compensated by way of payment of costs of Rs.2000/-. It is not in dispute that the proceedings are at the initial stage and the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is yet to be taken up for consideration after the checking of the original plaint. In my view, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this revision petition the same is hereby dismissed. 7.4.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge