The petitioner, Mst. Sattan, obtained a decree for possession of certain land through pre-emption.
Khasra number of the land as given in the plaint was 13/2;1 although the correct Khasra number of the land pre-empted by her was 12/2/ 1. After the passing of the decree she made an application praying that Khasra No. 13/2/1 may be substituted by Khasra No. 12/2/1. Her prayer was, however, not accepted by the trial Court and her revision before an Additional District Judge against the order of the learned trial Court had also failed. She has, therefore, filed this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it was through inadvertence that the Khasra number was wrongly mentioned in the plaint and since Khasra number as given in the mutation was Khasra No. 12;2/1 the amendment sought by the petitioner ought to have been allowed.
According to him, by not allowing the desired amendment the two Courts had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vesting in them. He relied on Nur Habib v. Sher Afzal and others (PLD 1954 Pesh. 67) and Abdus Sattar and another v. 1lafiz Muhammad Bakhsh and another (PLD 1979 Note 51 at p. 35) to support his submission.
3. On the other hand, it was submitted by learned counsel for the respondents, who were defendants in the suit and judgment debtors qua the decree in question, that the petitioner was herself at fault in giving incorrect Khasra number in the plaint and, therefore, was not entitled to the amendment of the decree.
4. It has been clearly laid down in the case of Nur Habib and Abdu Sattar and another cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the property pre-empted in a suit is wrongly mentioned in the plaint, through inadvertence and consequently, the same mistake is repeated while preparing the decree sheet tile mistake can be subsequently corrected by the Court passing the decree. It is not disputed that Khasra number of the land in question as given in the mutation is 12/2,/1. It is the land involved in that mutation which was presented by the petitioner by incorrectly stating in the plaint that its Khasra number was 13/2/1. Thus, the learned trial Court had the jurisdiction to allow the amendment prayed for by the petitioner but it had declined to exercise that jurisdiction.
5. I, therefore, accept this writ petition, set aside the order under challenge and send back the case to the learned Additional District Judge for re-deciding the revision petition in the light of the above observations at according to law. There shall be no order as to costs.