C.R. No.6471 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.6471 of 2007 Date of Decision: 26.2.2008 Amrik Singh and others .....Petitioners Vs. Sharanjit Singh and others ...Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.Sumeet Mahajan, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Amandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Tejinder K. Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Challenge in this revision is to an order dated 24.8.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby an application for amendment of the plaint was allowed by holding that as alienations have been made during the pendency of the suit, it would not change the nature of the suit and as these alienations are subsequent events, the amendment was necessary. Heard counsel for the parties and considered their respective submissions. A perusal of the application filed for amendment of the plaint/application filed under Order 33 of the C.P.C., discloses that the sale deeds, sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are two sets of four sale deeds each dated 22.11.1999 and 6.4.2000. The suit was admittedly filed on 19.7.2000. It is, therefore, apparent that the sale deeds that form the C.R. No.6471 of 2007 2 basis of the prayer for amendment were executed prior to the suit and not after filing of the suit or during its pendency. The categoric finding recorded by the trial Court that alienations were made during the pendency of the suit are, therefore, factually incorrect. As the trial Court's consideration is factually flawed the impugned order is null and void. A judicial consideration, based upon incorrect facts is an error that must be rectified in the discharge of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the order dated 24.8.2007 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned trial Court to decide the application for amendment of the plaint/application under Order 33 of the C.P.C. afresh, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the next date of hearing. 26.2.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE