ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J. The petitioner feeling aggrieved from the order dated 19.12.2023 ("the impugned order") passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Quetta, ("the appellate court"), whereby the application filed by the petitioner under section 152, C.P.C. for correction of the title of the appeal has been dismissed.
2. Precisely, the relevant facts of the instant case are that respondent Jan Bibi, wife of Muhammad Gul filed a suit for declaration, partition, cancellation of mutation entry No. 132, possession, mandatory and permanent injunction against the father of the petitioner namely Ali Dost, son of late Karim Bakhsh before learned Senior Civil Judge-III, Quetta ("the trial court").
3. After a full-dressed trial, the suit of the respondent was decreed in favour of the respondent vide judgment and decree dated 28.08.2018. The respondent filed an execution application before the trial court. The petitioner contested the execution application and filed objections. During the pendency of the execution application, the judgment debtor namely Ali Dost, son of late Karim Bakhsh died and thereafter the executing court passed an order for the auction of the property. The petitioner being aggrieved from the order passed by the executing court filed an appeal under section 104, C.P.C. and the same was allowed vide order dated 16.11.2021. In the year 2023, the petitioner filed an application under section 152, C.P.C. for correction of the title of appeal on the ground that the name of the appellant was typed mistakenly by Steno i.e. Bibi Fareeda instead of Fazila Bibi. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the learned Additional District Judge-I, Quetta dismissed the application of the petitioner on 19.12.2023, whereafter the instant petition was filed.
4. Notice was issued to the respondent and the same was served upon the respondent but despite service of notice and repeated calls, none appeared on behalf of the respondent; as such, the respondent proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 06.09.2024.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
6. It transpires from the record that a civil suit was filed by the respondent Jan Bibi, wife of Muhammad Gul against Ali Dost, son of late Karim Bakhsh and after full-dressed trial, the suit was decreed in favour of the respondent by the trial court. During execution proceedings, the judgment debtor Ali Dost died on 29.12.2020 and during the proceedings of the execution application, the executing court passed an order for the auction of the property, the wife of late Ali Dost namely Bibi Fazila filed an appeal under section 104, C.P.C. before learned--Additional District Judge-I, Quetta.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that learned counsel for the petitioner on an urgency basis filed that appeal and typed the title of appeal as Bibi Fareeda instead of Bibi Fazila, due to a mistake of Steno and filed an application under section 152, C.P.C. for correction of the name of Bibi Fareeda instead of Bibi Fazila but the learned Additional District Judge-I, Quetta refused the same on the ground that the petitioner filed application for correction of the name of the petitioner after more than two years.
7. There is no restriction on the power of the court under sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure to correct the mistake in the plaint, judgment, or decree, if the same occurs due a to bona fide mistake or oversight and the party is not found to be guilty of gross negligence. The mere fact that the petitioner sought correction after a lapse of a period of two years is not a valid ground in the instant case to refuse her the relief sought. Learned counsel stated that due to the mistake of Steno, he typed the name of the petitioner Bibi Fareeda instead of Bibi Fazila. Even otherwise, the petitioner did not seek any correction in the judgment and decree passed by the trial court only sought correction of the name in the title of appeal filed under section 104, C.P.C., which does not prejudice the other side.
8. All the rules of procedural law have been enacted for the purpose of administration of justice.
The basic purpose of all the rules is to serve the administration of justice and they should be subordinate to it. It is a settled principle of jurisprudence that procedural law should not be construed strictly so as to put the parties to undue inconvenience because the principal object behind all legal formalities. is to safeguard the paramount interest of justice. No one should be defeated merely on the basis of technicalities unless offering insurmountable hurdles. Legal technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way of justice, which might lead to unsettlement and uncertainty of law.
9. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 19.12.2023 passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Quetta is hereby set-aside and the application filed under section 152, C.P.C. for correction of name in the title of the appeal is hereby accepted to the extent of the title of appeal as Bibi Fazila and others v. Jan Bibi and others instead of Bibi Fareeda and others v. Jan Bibi and others.