IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.103 of 2010 1. ABDUL MANNAN S/O LATE HAZI ABDUL SUBHAN R/O MIRZAPUR HAT PAR, P.S. NAWADAH, DISTT. NAWADAH 2. MD. WASIM S/O ABDUL MANNAN R/O MIRZAPUR HAT PAR, P.S. NAWADAH, DISTT. NAWADAH 3. MD. ASIF EKBAL S/O ABDUL MANNAN R/O MIRZAPUR HAT PAR, P.S. NAWADAH, DISTT. NAWADAH 4. MD. SALAUDDIN S/O ABDUL MANNAN R/O MIRZAPUR HAT PAR, P.S. NAWADAH, DISTT. NAWADAH 5. MD. MOHISIN MINOR S/O ABDUL MANNAN, UNDER NATURAL GUARDIANSHIP OF HIS FATHER ABDUL MANNAN R/O MIRZAPUR HAT PAR, P.S. NAWADAH, DISTT. NAWADAH 6. MD. AMANULLAH MINOR S/O ABDUL MANNAN, UNDER NATURAL GUARDIANSHIP OF HIS FATHER ABDUL MANNAN R/O MIRZAPUR HAT PAR, P.S. NAWADAH, DISTT. NAWADAH 7. MD. AFAK MINOR S/O ABDUL MANNAN, UNDER NATURAL GUARDIANSHIP OF HIS FATHER ABDUL MANNAN R/O MIRZAPUR HAT PAR, P.S. NAWADAH, DISTT. NAWADAH 8. MD. ASADULLAH MINOR S/O ABDUL MANNAN, UNDER NATURAL GUARDIANSHIP OF HIS FATHER ABDUL MANNAN R/O MIRZAPUR HAT PAR, P.S. NAWADAH, DISTT. NAWADAH. . . Respondent nos. 4 to 11 (in writ). . Appellants. Versus 1. BIBI RAJIA KHATOON @ RAJIA KHATOON W/O LATE MD. MANZAR ALAM R/O MOH- MIRZAPUR HAT PAR, NAWADAH, DISTT. NAWADAH, AT PRESENT BELISHARIF, STN. ROAD, NAWADAH. . Petitioner-Respondent 1st Set. 2. THE STATE OF BIHAR 3. NAWADAH MUNICIPAL THROUGH EXECUTIVE OFFICER NAWADAH MUNICIPAL PARISHAD, NAWADAH 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER NAWADAH MUNICIPALITY PARISHAD, NAWADAH. Respondent no.1 to 3-Respondent 2ndSet For the Appellants: Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh, Adv. For Respondent nos. 3 & 4: Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Rai, Adv. For Respondent no.2: Mr. Manoj Priyadarshi, SC-17 For Respondent no.1: Mr. Sudarshan Sharma, Adv. ----------- 2/ 19.01.2011 The appellants have preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 24.11.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11465 of 2008, whereby the prayer of writ petitioner to set aside the order dated 21.03.2007 in Mutation Case no. 58/2006-07, has been allowed and the Executive Officer, Nawada, 2 has been directed to record the holding in dispute in her name. Counsel for respondent no.1, Bibi Rajia Khatoon, Executive Officer, Nawada Municipality, as well as counsel for State of Bihar are present. The facts relevant for disposal of this case is stated herein in short. Appellant no.1 is father of both appellant nos. 2 to 8 of as well as Late Manzar Alam, the husband of Bibi Rajia Khatoon, respondent no.1. The family owned properties in the township of Nawada. Late Manzar Alam, husband of respondent no.1, Bibi Rajia Khatoon filed partition suit, being Partition Suit no. 154 of 2004 in the court of Sub-Judge-I, Nawada for partition of the properties mentioned in Schedule-I to the plaint, which is quoted herein below: “Description of the suit property situated at Patna- Ranchi Main Road, Town Nawadah, P.S. and District Nawadah under Holding No. 56 (old) 248 (new) Ward No.4 (old) Ward No. 7 (new)”. The defendant no.1 in the plaint is father of late plaintiff, whereas defendant nos. 2 to 8 are his own brothers, who are appellants here in this appeal. Both plaintiff and defendants filed a compromise petition in terms of possessing equal share. The learned trial court on 25.01.2005 decreed the suit in terms of compromise. On 22.09.2006 Md. Manzar Alam, the husband of the writ petitioner died. On 06.12.2006, the writ petitioner Bibi Rajia Khatoon filed an application before Executive Officer, Nawada Municipality for mutating her name in respect of holding no. 252 of 3 Ward no. 5/11 in the township of Nawada vide Mutation case no. 58/2006-07. The appellants appeared before the Executive Officer, Nawada Municipality and raised objections and claimed that they have equal share in the property, as such their name should also be recorded in equal measurers vis a vis Bibi Rajia Khatoon (writ petitioner). They stated that the suit property was decreed equally in favour of all the parties in equal proportion. The Executive Officer, Nawada Municipality accepted the submissions and ordered for joint mutation of the name of both the writ petitioner and appellants in equal measure in respect of holding no. 252 of Ward no. 5/11 situated in the township of Nawada. Bibi Rajia Khatoon aggrieved by order dated 21.03.2007 passed by Executive Officer, Nawada filed C.W.J.C. No. 11465 of 2008. The writ petitioner claimed that earlier the name of her late husband was only recorded in respect of holding no. 252 of ward no. 5/11, as such after his death she was alone entitled to have her name recorded in the respective Khatian. On the other hand the appellants, who were arrayed as respondents in writ, appeared and contested the claim of the writ petitioner. They stated that holding in question relates to one house with its compound. In the plaint, the new holding number was wrongly described as holding no. 248 in place of 252. Counsel for the appellants submits that only holding no. 252 has been formed from old holding no.56 of ward no. 4 old. Counsel for the appellants submits that Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Nawada vide his Memo no.25 dated 05.01.2010 has also issued a clarification stating 4 therein that new plot no. 252 has been carved out from old holding no. 56. They state that Annexures- 4 to 11 annexed to the writ application was not interfered with by the learned Single Judge. They further submit that respondents cannot take advantage of typographical error in the Schedule attached to the plaint in respect of description of the property. The learned Single Judge vide his order dated 24.11.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11465 of 2008 set aside the order dated 21.03.2007 passed in Mutation case no. 58 of 2006-07 directing the Executive Officer, Nawada to record the holding no. 252 of ward no. 5/11, Main Road, Nawada in the name of writ petitioner. Learned Single Judge further observed that recording of holding in the name of the writ petitioner would be subject to any amendment made in the judgment and decree passed in Partition Suit no. 154 of 2004. The appellants in this appeal have reiterated the grounds that they took plea both before the Executive Officer, Nawada and before the learned Single Judge. We find that learned Single Judge noticed that holding no. 252 of ward no. 5/11, Main Road, Nawada was not a subject matter in the proceeding in Partition Suit no. 154 of 2004, as such the decree passed in the title suit relating to holding no. 56 (old), 248 (new) of old ward no.4, being new ward no.7 on main road, Nawada would not bind the parties. The learned Single Judge rightly observed that if there is a bona-fide mistake in typing the new plot number incorrectly in plaint and consequently in decree, it will be 5 open to either of the parties to get the same amended. Counsel for respondent no.1 (writ petitioner), however, controverted the claim of the appellants and submitted that not only the holding number of the suit land but the ward number of the holding in question also differs. It is not in dispute that holding no. 252 was recorded in favour of late Manzar Alam, husband of respondent no.1. Furthermore, for whatever reason holding no. 252 of ward no. 5/11 was not subject matter of title suit. Thus, we do not find any infirmity with the order of the learned Single Judge directing for recording the name of the petitioner in respect of holding no. 252 of ward no. 5/11 of Main Road, Nawada. However, it will be open for the appellants to pray for necessary corrections / amendments in the judgment / decree or may file a fresh suit in respect of it. With the aforesaid observation, this appeal is disposed of. Uday/ (S.K. Katriar, J.) (S. P. Singh, J.)