Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.05.2012 passed by 5th Additional District Judge, Mathura directing for inquiry on a complaint made by defendant that there has been some interpolation in the facts stated in the copy of plaint, certified copy whereof was served upon him and having been prima facie satisfied with the said complaint the court below has directed inquiry in the matter.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in reply to para 14 of his plaint the respondent-tenant filed his written statement and except of denying para 13 he has not said anything about the amount mentioned in para 14 that it is one lac and ought to have been ten thousand, therefore, there was no reason for the court below to conduct any inquiry in the matter.
(3.) A perusal of para 14 of the plaint shows that the plaintiff therein has described the estimated loss likely to be suffered by him on account of continued occupation of premises in dispute by tenant. This was the estimation in view of plaintiff mentioned in para 14 which was denied by defendant but subsequently he found that in the copy of plaint given to him the amount was mentioned only ten thousand while in the original copy of plaint available before the court below the amount mentioned in para 14 was one lac. Obviously this difference could have been detected only when the respondent-tenant had any occasion to compare the copy of plaint available in the record of court below and copy of plaint served upon him alongwith summons or notice. It is not the case of petitioner that this occasion had arisen or this comparison was made by respondent-tenant at any earlier point of time. In what manner this difference in the amount has been mentioned in the copy of plaint available in trial court and the certified copy available to tenant is a matter of inquiry. Once it is true that there is a difference in the two sets of copies of plaint and the allegation of respondent-tenant is that pages no. 4 and 6 of original plaint available in the record of court have been changed subsequently, this matter needs investigation and the court below, therefore, has rightly passed order directing for such inquiry.;