DURGA SINGH Vs. WAHID RAZA AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-1964-8-16
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on August 12,1964

DURGA SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
Wahid Raza Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SHEO BALAK SINGH V. MAHABIR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
DEBA NAND NAITHANI V. JAYA NAND [REFERRED TO]
HUSSAIN SAB VS. SITARAM VIGHNESHWAR [REFERRED TO]
CHINTA MANI VS. DEBI PRASAD [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

HAKAM SINGH VS. JASWANT SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1973-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
SAYED ABDUL RAUF VS. NURUL HUSSAIN [LAWS(RAJ)-1991-3-19] [REFERRED ON ,1964 ALL LJ 817:]
RAJENDRA NATH TEWARI VS. BOARD OF REVENUE U P AT ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-1972-3-25] [REFERRED TO]
NIAMATULLAH VS. DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-1996-2-91] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRIKA AMMA VS. MOHAMMED [LAWS(KER)-1984-7-21] [REFERRED TO]
HANSABAI SRIPATI BHOSALE VS. PARUBAI GOPAL BHOSALE [LAWS(BOM)-2009-8-82] [REFERRED TO]
KANNAN VS. NARAYANI [LAWS(KER)-1979-10-6] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

V.G.OAK, J. - (1.)THIS Civil Revision by a defendant arises out of a proceeding for amendment of a decree under Sections 151, 152 and 153, C.P.C.
(2.)WAHID Raza and others brought a suit against Durga Singh defendant for recovery of possession over certain plots and damages. The suit was dismissed by the learned Munsif of Moradabad, but was decreed in appeal by the Additional Civil Judge of Moradabad. A Second Appeal by Durga Singh defendant was summarily dismissed by this Court under O. XLI, R. 11, C.P.C.
In the plaint the land in dispute was described as two plots situate in village Noorpur. According to the plaintiffs, that description was incorrect, in fact the plots lie in another village Pandit Nagla. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed the application under Ss. 151, 152 and 153, C.P.C. before the Additional Civil Judge of Moradabad for amendment of the decree. That application was opposed by Durga Singh defendant. But the learned Additional Civil judge overruled Durga Singhs objection, and allowed amendment of the plaint and the decree by his order dated 7-1-1961. This Civil Revision by Durga Singh defendant is directed against that order dated 7-1-1961, allowing amendment.

(3.)MR . Krishna Sahai, appearing for the applicant, urged two points before us. Firstly, he contended that the alleged mistake was neither the clerical mistake nor an arithmetical mistake. The alleged mistake could not be corrected by an application under Sections 151, 152 and 153, C.P.C. Secondly, it was urged that an applications for amendment ought to have been filed before the High Court, which dismissed the Second Appeal and finally disposed of the case.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.