C.R. No.6527 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.6527 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.10.2010 Municipal Corporation, Faridabad ……Petitioner VERSUS Baldev Singh Bhatia and another ……Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 29.4.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Faridabad, whereby amendment application moved by the plaintiffs/respondents herein correcting the descrip- tion of the property in the plaint was allowed. C.R. No.6527 of 2010 (O&M) -2- 2. Learned trial Court while allowing the amendment appli- cation in paragraph No.6 has observed as under:- “6. In the present case, the perusal of the sale deed dated 9.3.2005 as well as the mu- tation bearing No.8019 submitted by the plaintiff alongwith the plaint show that the suit land is comprised in Rect. No.54, Killa No.3/2, 4/1, 7, 8/1, 8/2 and 9/1 and not as detailed in Para No.1 of the plaint. However, since these documents were submitted with the plaint, it appears that the error is typographical and in case the said amendment is not allowed, it would lead to injustice or another litigation on the same ground.” 3. Undisputedly, sale deed dated 9.3.2005 and mutation bearing No.8019 are on the file. Undisputedly, plaintiffs are claiming right and title on the basis of sale deed dated 9.3.2005 and mutation bearing No.8019, hence, detail of the property given in the sale deed and mutation will pre- vail. If by typographical mistake, description of the prop- erty is wrongly mentioned in the plaint then plaintiffs have every right to correct it by way of amendment to make it similar of the sale deed dated 9.3.2005 and mutation bearing No.8019. I do not think that impugned order re- quires any interference. 4. Hence, the petition is dismissed. C.R. No.6527 of 2010 (O&M) -3- ( ALOK SINGH ) 07th October, 2010 JUDGE ashish