IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9255 of 2011 Sagir Ahamad Khan & Anr Versus Hamidullah Khan & Anr ---------------------------------- 08. 13.10.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that this writ application has been converted from civil revision. In the civil revision, notices were issued and the respondents had already appeared. When this case is called out for hearing in admission matter, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff- petitioner against the Order dated 20.12.2008 passed by Munsif Ist, Sasaram in Misc. Case No.8 of 2007 and order dated 19.04.2007 passed by Munsif Ist, Sasaram in final decree proceeding in Title Suit No.69 of 1993 whereby the application or amendment of the plaint filed by the plaintiff was rejected. Against the said rejection order dated 19.04.2007, the petitioner filed review application which was numbered as Misc. Case No.8 of 2007. The learned Court below refused to review the order of rejection dated 19.04.2007. The plaintiff filed the aforesaid Title Suit No.69 of 1993 for partition of land and house standing on plot No.1831 and 1832 which was purchased by the plaintiff and the defendants through registered sale deed dated 03.01.1979. However, in the schedule of the plaint in - 2 - place of plot No.1832 it has wrongly been typed as plot No.1838. The said defect was detected after passing preliminary decree. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the amendment application praying for correcting the number of plot from 1838 to plot No.1832. Admittedly, in this case, the Pleader Commissioner has also submitted report wherein it has clearly been mentioned that the plot No.1832 was purchased by the plaintiff and defendant. The plot No.1838 is of different person who is not party to the suit. However, from perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below relied upon a decision of this Court reported in 1995 (1) P.L.J.R. 696 Sita Devi & Ors. Vs. Chamri Sao and Ors and rejected the amendment application. From perusal of the decision referred to above, it appears that in that case after preliminary decree, the plaintiff was seeking to add further 4 other plots which was not subject matter of preliminary decree. In the present case at our hand, it is not the case here rather by mistake in place of plot No.1832, it has been typed plot No.1838. There is no dispute to this mistake which is also confirmed by the Pleader Commissioner. The contesting defendant never stated that plot No.1838 is also the property of the parties. It is also not their case that the plot number has wrongly been typed. It is also not their case that plot No.1832 is not the property of - 3 - the parties. Therefore, it is clear that it is only a typing mistake and, therefore, the amendment sought for by the plaintiff is formal in nature. The learned Court below wrongly misconstrued the decision of this Court and wrongly rejected the amendment application. In my opinion, therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.04.2007 passed by Munsif Ist, Sasaram in final decree proceeding of Title Suit No.69 of 1993 rejecting the amendment in the plaint is set aside. The order dated 20.12.2008 passed by Munsif Ist, Sasaram in review application, i.e., Misc. case No.8 of 2007 is also set aside. The amendment application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner is allowed. The plaintiff-petitioner shall carry on the amendment in the schedule of the plaint within 14 days from the receipt of a copy of this order in the Court below. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)