P.K.Ray, J. - (1.) The defendant-tenant of Title Suit No. 253 of 1991 being the petitioner herein has challenged the order dated 12th July, 1996 passed in the said suit by the Court of Munsif, First Court at Krishnanagar, Nadia whereby prayer for amendment of a decree was allowed. Suit was eviction suit under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The landlord is a plaintiff prayed for amendment of decree by incorporating the schedule therein in respect of the suit premises as mentioned in paragraph 1 of the plaint.
(2.) It is an admitted fact that except the description of suit premises in paragraph 1 of the plaint, no schedule of the property was mentioned in the plaint. Suit was decreed against the tenant-defendant by the trial Court. Appeal was preferred by the tenant-defendant agitating the said point that there was no schedule in the plaint. The learned First appellate Court considering the matter in depth, dismissed the appeal. Plaintiff-landlord thereafter filed an application for correction of the decree to execute the same by incorporating the schedule property therein, as suit premises was not described in the decree, learned Court below came to the finding in the impugned order that though the schedule of the property was mentioned in paragraph 1 of the plaint by not in schedule, still the same would be considered as the suit premises as the description of the property has been clearly stated in the paragraph 1 of the plaint and accordingly considered the amendment as a clerical mistake and thereby allowed such amendment directing to incorporate description of the property as mentioned in paragraph 1 of the plaint, in the decree.
(3.) The defendant-tenant has assailed this in the revisional application. In my view, no illegality of irregularity has been done by the learned Court below in allowing such application for amendment. Under Order 7 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure read with Order 20 Rule 9 of the said Code plaint and decree must contain the description of the disputed property capable of being properly identified. In the instant case, property is duly and properly identified from paragraph 1 of the plaint which reads as follows:- "that the disputed shop room is appertaining to the J.L. No. 89 Majdia consisted of R.S. Record of rights Khatian No. 1333 R.S. Record of Rights Plot No. 1166/2678 and L.R. Record of Rights Khatian No. 3311 Kri and I.R.R.R. Plot No. 1166/2678 and area .01 acre out of .02 acre consisted of a shop room under P.S. Krishnaganj in the District of Nadia is within the jurisdiction of your Honour's Court.";