C.R. No. 5211 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 5211 of 2009 Date of Decision: 12.10.2009 Sukhjinder Singh Duggal son of Amarjit Singh, resident of Changali Qadeem, Post Office, Faridewala, District Ferozepur. ... Revision-Petitioner Versus Jyoti alias Manpreet Kaur daughter of Ramesh Bassi, resident of H No. 2, Street No. 2, Basti Tankanwali, Ferozepur City. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Jetinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner. Mr. Kamal Narula, Advocate, for the respondent. Ms. Manpreet Kaur, respondent, in person. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 26.08.09, rendered by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ferozepur, vide which, the application, moved by the revision-petitioner, for correction, in the name of the second party namely Jyoti, was dismissed. 2. A joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage C.R. No. 5211 of 2009 2 Act, 1955 (amended upto date), was filed, by the parties, which was accepted, vide judgement dated 30.01.08, by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ferozepur. In that petition, the name of the second party, was written as Jyoti wife of Sukhjinder Singh. 3. An application, was moved, by the revision-petitioner, that actually the name of the second party, was Jyoti @ Manpreet Kaur, and the same, be corrected. It was further stated that, her name, as Jyoti only in the petition, under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, as the second party, was inadvertently mentioned. That application, was dismissed, by the Court below, vide the order impugned dated 26.08.09, on the ground, that it was not a clerical/typographical mistake. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner. 5. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 6. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the actual name of the second party, is Jyoti @ Manpreet Kaur, wife of Sukhjinder Singh Duggal and daughter of Ramesh Bassi, resident of H. No. 2, Street No. 2, Basti Tankanwali, Ferozepur City. He also placed, on record, photocopy of the identity-card, issued by the Election Commission of India, wherein, the name of the second party, is written, as Manpreet Kaur. Even Manpreet Kaur, was present, in the Court today, and her appearance matched with the photo impression of C.R. No. 5211 of 2009 3 the photograph, on the photocopy of the identity-card, issued by the Election Commission of India, referred to above. He further submitted that, it was only an inadvertent/clerical mistake, which occurred, in the joint petition, under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, which ought to have been corrected, by the Court below. He further submitted that the order impugned, was illegal, and be set aside. 7. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, admitted that, Jyoti and Manpreet Kaur, is one and the same lady. He also admitted that the name of Jyoti only was inadvertently written as the second party, in the joint petition, under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. He submitted that actually, she is known, by the name of Jyoti @ Manpreet Kaur. He further submitted that the copy of the identity-card, issued by the Election Commission of India, produced, on record, today, by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, also relates to Jyoti @ Manpreet Kaur, who was the second party, in the petition, under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. He further submitted that he had no objection, in case, necessary correction, in the name of the second party, in the main petition, as also, in the pleadings, as Jyoti @ Manpreet Kaur, was made. 8. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. If, on account of inadvertence, the name of the second party, was wrongly written, in the petition, under Section C.R. No. 5211 of 2009 4 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, as also, in the judgement dated 30.01.08, the Court, has got wide powers, to correct, such an inadvertent mistake. Such inadvertent mistake, in the pleadings of the parties occurred, on account of typographical error. Since Jyoti and Manpreet Kaur, is the same lady, in my opinion, her name, ought to be corrected. In Gulzara Singh Vs. Devinder Singh (2004(3) CCC, 455, it was held, that correction, in the judgement, can also be made, even if, the error has occurred due to wrong pleadings. It was further held that it was not necessary first to amend the pleadings. The order impugned, thus, suffers from illegality, material irregularity, and perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and is liable to be set aside. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, is accepted. The order impugned dated 26.08.09, is set aside. The application, filed by the revision-petitioner, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stands allowed. The Court below, is ordered to carry out the necessary correction, in the pleadings, as also, in the order, in the name of the second party, as Jyoti @ Manpreet Kaur. 12.10.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE