CR No.7313 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7313 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:10.11.2010. Sultan Ahmed ...Petitioner Versus Mohd. Bilal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.08.2010 by which an application for amendment of the plaint has been allowed. In the application for amendment, the plaintiff has alleged as under: - “4. That after the institution of the present suit the plaintiff came to know that the Suleman defendant No.5 is also known as Sultan Ahmed and defendant No.6 Ahmed is also known as Mohd. Anwar and the Suleman and Sultan Ahmed are the name of one and the same person and similarly Ahmed and Mohd. Anwar are also the name of one and the same person. It is pertinent to mention that the summons of the present suit were also served on the defendant No.5 and defendant No.6 as Sultan Ahmed and Mohd. Anwar respectively and they received the summons and has also appeared before this Honorable Court through their counsel. It is CR No.7313 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ****** also pertinent to mention here that the father's name of Suleman alias Sultan Ahmed and Ahmed alias Mohd. Anwar and their place of resident is also the same. The plaintiff wants to amend the head note of the plaint by adding words `alias Sultan Ahmed' after the name of defendant No.5 Suleman and words `alias Mohd. Anwar' after the name of defendant No.6 Ahmed in the head note of the plaint. The amended head note of the plaint is as under: - “Mohd. Bilal aged 38 years son of Sadiqan daughter of Rahim Bakhsh wife of Ibrahim, resident of Mohalla Pathran Wala, Bhumsi, Malekotla, District Sangrur. ...Plaintiff. Versus 1. Mohd. Khalil son of Sadiqan daughter of Rahim Bakhsh wife of Ibrahim, resident of Mohalla Pathran Wala, Bhumsi, Malerkotla, District Sangrur. 2. Shakeela daughter of Sadiqan daughter of Rahim Bakssh wife of Ibrahim, resident of Mohalla Pathran Wala, Bhumsi, Malerkotla, District Sangrur. 3. Smt. Rashidan wife of Khushi Mohd. son of Mohd. Habib, 4. Mohd. Nazir, 5. Suleman alias Sultan Ahmed, 6. Ahmed alias Mohd. Anwar, 7. Mohd. Bashir, sons of Mohd. Habib son of Rahim Bakhsh, all residents of Near Raja Filling Station Raikot Road, Malerkotla, District CR No.7313 of 2010 (O&M) -3- ****** Sangrur. ...Defendants” Since the suit is at the initial stages, the learned Trial Court has allowed the amendment vide the impugned order dated 20.08.2010. Aggrieved against the said order, the present revision petition has been preferred by defendant No.5 alleging that he had filed an application under Section 35-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short “CPC”], but the learned Trial Court without deciding the same has allowed the application for amendment. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the available record. The plaintiff had filed the suit for exclusive possession by way of partition of 2/5th share out of 3/10th share of Smt. Sadiqan wife of Ibrahim in Gair Mumkin land measuring 1 Kanal 13 Marlas, situated in the revenue estate of Malerkotla, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur. In the said suit, he had initially impleaded Suleman as defendant No.5, but sent the summons by registered post on the address of Sultan Ahmed (petitioner). The petitioner filed application under Section 35-A of the CPC to the effect that he is not a party to the suit, therefore, he may be awarded compensation/costs. As soon as the plaintiff came to know about the error in the memo of parties, he filed the present application for amendment alleging that Suleman is also known as `Sultan Ahmed' and for that purposes it was alleged that defendant No.5 Suleman be also read as `alias Sultan Ahmed'. In view of the fact that the suit is at the initial stages and there was a clerical error, I do not think that there is any jurisdictional defect in the impugned order by which the amendment has been allowed. In view thereof, the present revision petition is found to be without any merit and as such, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. November 10, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE