FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 72/2009 BALWANT DAULATRAOJI BHUYAR .VERSUS.. SAU.DWRKABAI DEVIDAS KARALE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or Directions Court's or Judge's Orders. And Registrar's Orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri J.B.Kasat, Advocate, for the petitioner. CORAM : A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 7 th OCTOBER, 2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2/- A decree was passed in the year 1991 in the Special Civil Suit No. 173/1989 in favour of the decree holder. When the execution proceedings were filed after the end of the litigation, the decree holder found that the field survey number under the decree was renumbered by the Revenue Department of the Government and that is why he filed an application under Section 152 for putting the new numbers given by the Revenue Department in the decree. 3/- This application was objected to by filing the reply by judgment debtor. The first objection was that the application was not maintainable as it was not a formal mistake as stated by the decree holder. The second objection was that the plaint itself was required to be amended in that case as some land was acquired for rehabilitation purpose and that is why the area was also changed. 4/- Now, before me, Mr. Kasat, learned counsel for the petitioner raised one more objection that the certificate issued by the Talathi about renumbering was itself bogus and therefore, it was the duty of the trial Court to examine the Patwari and find out the correct position. 5/- Having heard Mr. Kasat, learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the decree of 1991 has become final between the parties. During the intervening period, the numbering of the field in respect of which decree was passed, was changed by the Revenue Department because of certain events and it appears that some land was acquired for rehabilitation & resettlement and there was a renumbering & reduction of area also. What the decree holder wanted was to put the correct survey number after the process of renumbering was carried out by the Revenue Department. In my opinion, this would be a formal correction in the light of renumbering and such application is maintainable under Section 152 of C.P.C. 6/- In so far as identify of property is concerned, the objection does not any way show that the decree holder was trying to change the identify of the property itself, but the objection was that in the plaint amendment was required to be made. Since I have already discussed that during the intervening period of long number of years, the renumbering was done, the plaint obviously mentioned the old number. As argued by Mr. Kasat, learned counsel for the petitioner before me that the certificate was bogus, nothing prevented the applicant from applying to the Court for cross examination of the Officer from Revenue Department to prove his contention i.e. certificate of Talathi was bogus. If at all that was the case of the applicant, he should have raised the objection accordingly, but that having not been done, it is not possible for me to appreciate such contention for the first time in writ petition. The learned trial Court has, therefore, rightly found that there was formal change of survey number because of event stated herein before and there was no material change as argued by Mr. Kasat, learned counsel for the petitioner. 7/- In the result, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. There is no merit in the revision application, the same is rejected. JUDGE Rvjalit