1. ' The respondents herein first brought suit in the Revenue Court for the ejectment of petitioners herein from the suit property on the ground that they are co-sharers in the suit Shamilat bearing Khasras Nos. 261 and 264. They were not successful in the revenue Court, as in appeal, the Collector directed them to file suit before the civil Court within a period of three months, vide order, dated 28-2-1980. Consequently the respondents brought the present suit in the civil Court. They, however, soug it possession of the suit property in the heading of the plaint and so was their prayer for relief, The learned trial Judge framed various issues. He recorded evidence of the petitioners. The record shows that the learned counsel for the respondents did not want to produce evidence and his signature was obtained on the order sheet. On 4-12.1982, however, an application on behalf of the respondents was filed for the amendment of the plaint in order to insert declaration instead of possession in the heading of the plaint and also to seek prayer to that effect in the relief clause of the plaint. The application after contest was dismissed by the learned trial Judge by order, dated 21-4-1983 and the case was fixed for 30-4-1983 for further proceedings. On 30-4-1983 the learned counsel for the respondents, however, made a statement that in view of the rejection of the application for amendment, there was no need to proceed further with the case. Accordingly, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit, vide order, dated 30-4-1983 The respondents were aggrieved by the order dated 21-4-1933 by which their application for amendment was rejected as well as the order, dated 30-4-1983 by which their suit was dismissed on the statement of their counsel, therefore, they filed appeal in the District Court and a learned Additional District Judge who heard the appeal accepted he same and setting aside both the orders remanded the case to the learned trial Judge with direction to proceed with the case after amendment in the plaint as above is effected by the respondents, vide his judgment, dated 11-11-1984. Hence this revision application.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, I find no error of law in the impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Judge. He rightly allowed amendment in the plaint to the respondents. The respondents first sought ejectment of the petitioners from the suit property in the Revenue Courts and they were directed to establish title to the suit property in the civil Court. Thus, their intention was manifest in the proceedings brought by them before the civil Court, namely, the object of their present suit was to seek declaration about title to the suit land. This fact is asserted in the contents of the plaint. In the heading of the plaint, the prayer for possession was, therefore, just a mistake divorced from what the respondents had sought in the plaint. The amendment in the heading and in the prayer clause of th plaint to seek declaration will not change the form of the suit and by seeking such amendment the respondents cannot be said to have introduced a new case as against the case set up by them in the averments made by them in the plaint. In order to do substantial justice between the parties, the Court should not use a simple error occurred inadvertently in the judicial proceedings against a party to throw him out of Court. The learned trial Judge was not justified to refuse amendment to the respondents in the plaint and the learned Additional District Judge rightly set aside his order. As the very order by which the learned trial Judge refused amendment was wholly without justification, the subsequent order by which, as a result, the suit of the respondents was dismissed, will have no legal ground. No exception can, therefore, be taken against the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge by which he set aside both the above orders.
3. ' As a result, this revision application is dismissed with no order as to costs.