Civil Revision No.2297 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2297 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: January 21, 2011 Randhir Singh and another .....Petitioners v. Iqbal Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Prashant Bansal, Advocate for the respondent. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. C.M.Nos.28005-06-CII of 2010 Requests for placing on record copies of Annexures R1 to R7. The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly. Civil Revision No.2297 of 2010 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 19.3.2010, Annexure P5, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rajpura, vide which application moved by the petitioners for amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the `Code') was declined. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that suit for possession regarding land measuring 6 bighas 16 biswas being 136/388 share of land measuring 19 bighas 8 biswas described in the heading of the plaint, was filed by the petitioner-plaintiffs alongwith the Civil Revision No.2297 of 2010(O&M) -2- relief of mandatory injunction directing the respondent-defendant to remove the super structure on the said land, on the allegations that possession of the said land was taken by respondent-defendant on the basis of agreement to sell dated 3.12.2001 and however, the sale-deed was not executed and registered in favour of the plaintiffs. Another suit was filed by respondent-defendant against the present petitioner-plaintiffs for confirmation of possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 25.4.2000, 21.5.2001 and 3.12.2001 executed by the present petitioners in favour of respondent- defendant regarding the land measuring 6 bighas 16 biswas being 136/388 share out of total land measuring 19 bighas 8 biswas. However, the subject matter of both the suits is the same. Both the suits were also ordered to be consolidated by learned trial Court. After filing of suit for specific performance by respondent -defendant, the present application has been filed by petitioner-plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code for amendment of the plaint. It has been averred that due to clerical/typographical mistake, the land measuring 6 bighas 16 biswas has been mentioned instead of land measuring 1 bigha only and hence, plaintiffs intend to amend the heading of the plaint and prayer clause for claiming of relief of possession regarding land measuring 1 bigha only. The application has been contested by respondent-defendant by taking the plea that in fact there is dispute between the parties regarding 6 bighas 16 biswas of land for which the suit has also been filed by the respondent-defendant for confirmation of possession by way of specific performance of agreements to sell executed in his favour by present petitioner-plaintiffs and that both the civil suits were also consolidated by learned trial Court. Learned trial Court dismissed the prayer of petitioner-plaintiffs by observing as under:- “ So from the whole body of plaint, it is clear that plaintiff had agreed to sell his land, i.e., 6 bighas 16 biswas and possession of the same was given at that time and that is why he filed the present suit for possession when sale deed could Civil Revision No.2297 of 2010(O&M) -3- not be executed for any reason. On the other side the defendant/Iqbal Singh has also filed the suit for specific performance as well as confirmation of his possession which was given to him through agreement. But ld.counsel for the plaintiff argued that amendment should be allowed liberally and he relied upo Gautam Sarup vs. Leela Jetly and others 2008(2) -CCC-676-SC, Gian Parkash Sood Vs. M/s.Brij Lal Tilak Raj and Ors.- 2008(2) – CCC -459 (P&H) and M.C.Agrawal HUF Vs. M/s.Sahara India and others- 2009 (1) -CCC- 152 (SC), but these are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. So the present error cannot be treated as a clerical or typing mistake and this Court is of the considered view that plaintiffs are now resiling from their admission in the pleadings which is not permissible under law because an amendment cannot be allowed in favour of a person by which a legal right is accrued to the other party. So by filing the present suit for possession regarding 6 bighas 16 biswas a valid legal right has already been accrued in favour of the defendant Iqbal Singh.” It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiffs that he can relinquish/abundant any part of his claim at any point of time and hence, learned trial Court has committed illegality in rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint. On the point he has placed reliance upon Manthan Brank Band Services Pvt. Ltd. v. C.K.T. Communications Pvt.Ltd, 2005(3) ICC 358. It has also been contended that amendment sought is only of clarificatory in nature and hence the proposed amendment does not require any further evidence nor any fresh issue is required to be framed. On the point he has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Arjan Singh v. Bachan Singh and Others 2008(2) Civil Court Cases 361 (P&H). However, none of the afroresaid judgments are applicable to the facts of present case. In the present case suit for specific performance of three agreements executed by present petitioner-plaintiffs in favour of respondent-defendant has also been filed by respondent-defendant against them regarding the same land total measuring 6 bighas 16 biswas. In the Civil Revision No.2297 of 2010(O&M) -4- present suit, which has been filed by petitioner-plaintiffs, they have admitted that possession of 6 bighas 16 biswas of land was taken by respondent-defendant at the time of execution of agreement to sell and that however, as sale-deeds have not been executed, he has sought possession of the said total land. Hence, vide the application for amendment, petitioner- plaintiffs intends to resile from their admissions in the pleadings and it has been rightly observed by learned trial Court that the same is not permissible under the law, as a legal right is accrued to the other party by way of amendment. Law is well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order or grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. 21.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge