C.R. No. 656 of 2010 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 656 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 17.2.2010 Bhim Singh & another .......... Petitioners Versus The Gram Panchayat Murthal & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Surender Saini, Advocate for the petitioners. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 3653-CII of 2010 The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the contention noticed in the order dated 2.2.2010 was raised. The C.M. No. 3653-CII of 2010, for placing on record the written statement and plaint, therefore, is ordered to be dismissed, as it would not be relevant for decision of the case. C.R. No. 656 of 2010 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 8.12.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sonepat vide which application moved by the petitioner under Section 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment in the plaint and thereafter correction in the judgment and decree passed stands dismissed. The case of the petitioner was that at the time of filing the suit in-advertantly the previous counsel for the plaintiff / decree-holder did not C.R. No. 656 of 2010 2 place on record Fard Jamabandi for the year 2000-01 of the suit property, nor pleaded the correct facts, therefore, the plaintiff now wanted to amend the plaint by inserting the words that “the land in dispute comprised in khewat No. 2665 min, Khata No. 4393 min rect. & Killa No. 268//14/1(7- 19) out of which the suit property is being used by the plaintiff i.e. 500 sq. yards”. The plaintiff also sought to insert in para 10, the following : “the suit property mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint”. It is not in dispute, that in the suit originally filed the defendant did not contest the claim of the plaintiff with regard to the injunction qua the property depicted in the plaint by the plaintiff / petitioner. In reply to the application, it has been averred that the amendment sought relates to the land, which is in possession of the police and not in possession of the plaintiff / petitioner. The learned trial Court, in view of the stand of the parties, held that the amendment sought is not one which could be allowed under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the amendment sought did not fall under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the impugned order by contending, that the learned trial Court failed to take note of the fact, that by way of amendment, the petitioner only wanted to give better particulars of the property which did not change the nature of the suit. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The very fact that the suit of the petitioners with regard to the property in dispute was not contested, and the C.R. No. 656 of 2010 3 amendment is contested on the plea, that the land sought to be included by way of amendment already stood transferred to police by the Gram Panchayat. The allowing of amendment, would result in substitution of a property in the plaint and decree, and would result in complete change of lis. The scope of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be extended to cover the amended claim of the petitioner. The learned trial Court was right in rejecting the application, as under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court can correct only clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission, but the Court in exercise of power under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure can not substitute one property for another. The order passed, does not suffer from any illegality, which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. 17.2.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE