| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1980 SLD 3032 = 1980 CLC 549 |
Azad J. & K
Civil Revision No. 63 of 1979, decided on 7th November, 1979.,
Presented By: Sardar Muhammad Sharif Khan, J
Syed Zain-ul-Abidin Shah Gillani for Petitioner.
Respondent in person.
Civil Revision No. 63 of 1979, decided on 7th November, 1979.,
Presented By: Sardar Muhammad Sharif Khan, J
Syed Zain-ul-Abidin Shah Gillani for Petitioner.
Respondent in person.
Mst. MIRAN-Petitioner
VERSUS
MIR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER-Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 152 & 153, O. VI, r. 17
Civil Procedure Code (V o(.1908) Ss. 152 & 153 and O. VI, r. 17-Errors or omissions-Amendment Certified copy of sale deed supplied to plaintiff by office of Sub Registrar containing wrong number, namely 476 instead of correct Survey No. 276-Application for correction of error and amendment of plaint made when error detected but rejected on ground of suit having become barred by limitation when such application made- Held Area of land in suit being very well described in plaint and fact of land being pre-empted being not denied, mere writing of a wrong survey number for land in suit could not lead to inference of land having not been pre-empted and no question of limitation cropped up as such-Mistake being clerical and arithmetical, same, held further-, could be rectified at any stage of case by way of amendment.-[Amendment of plaint-Pleadings]. Date of institution : 21st August, 1979. ORDER This is a revision petition against order dated 23-7-1979 of the learned Sub-Judge M'abad by which the prayer for an amendment of the plaint was refused. Mst. Miran, petitioner brought a suit of pre-emption for the land in suit which was sold by her brother to Mir Hussain respondent. The survey number of the suit land was wrongly written in the plaint as a certified copy of the sale-deed which was supplied to plaintiff by the office of the Sub-Registrar contained a wrong number namely 476 instead of correct Survey No. 276. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent were heard. The above-mentioned mistake was discovered by the counsel of the plaintiff after the submission of the written statement by the vendee-defendant. At the time the written statement was filed on 10-5-1978 it appears that it was not brought to the notice of…