1. ' This Civil Revision by the defendants in the suit for pre-emption was against the judgment of the lower Appellate Court by which it had dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial Court decreeing pre-emption in favour of the plaintiff.
2. Pre-eruption suit arose from the following facts: Muhammad Din owned land measuring 12 Kanals, comprised in Khasra No,73/23 of Khatuni No,312, in Khcwat No,70/63 (8 Kanals), Khasra No,73/24-min sharq of Khatuni No,315 in Khcwat No,71/64 (4 Kanals), situated in Chak No,31/22 in Tehsil Okara. By a deed registered on 27-24980, he sold the above land to Ilyas, Hassan, Rehmat, Razzaq and Ghulam Muhammad alias Gam sons of Suleman for a price of Rs,10,000. Registered sale-deed was implemented in Revenue Records by attestation of Mutation No,487 in favour of the vendees. Jan Muhammad claimed pre-emption in respect of the above sale and filed a suit for the enforcement of his pre-emptive rights against the vendees on 8-5-1980, in the Court of Civil Judge Okara. Superior right of pre-emption was claimed on the grounds of being a collateral (nephew of the vendor), and, a co-owner in the land sold.
2. ' Vendees submitted joint written statement. It was pleaded that plaintiff was estopped to sue for pre-emption; that the plaint was deficiently stamped; that the vendees were in occupation of the land purchased by them as its non-occupancy tenants and had a better right qua plaintiff. On 13- 10-1980, the trial Court framed following issues:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file this suit due to his own words and conduct? OPD.
(2) Whether the plaint is insufficiently stamped, if so, what is the proper valuation of the plaint?
3. OPD.
(3) Whether the plaintiff has got superior right of pre-emption? OPP.
(4) Relief.
4. ' Upon taking evidence from the parties to the suit and its review, the trial Court concluded that plea of estoppel was not established; the plaint was sufficiently stamped; plaintiff had superior right of pre-emption and consequently decreed pre-emption in his favour subject to his paying Rs,10,000 as sale price to the vendees wihin one month from the date of its judgment given on 1-10- 1981.
5. Vendees-defendants, preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court. It was heard by learned Additional District Judge who finding no merit in it dismissed the same on 26-1-1982. Against the agreed judgment of the lower Courts, vendees have come up in revision to this Court. It was admitted on 22-3-1982. Admitting order runs as:- "The sale in dispute relates to Khasra No,73/23 and 24-min whereas the suit was filed ostensibly for another piece of land namely Khasra. No,73/22 and 24. It is stated that although the objection was not taken earlier but the decree when executed would take away Killa No,22, which was never sold.
6. That question relates to the very correctness of the decree and needs examination.
2. Admit. Notice."
7. ' Upon admitting Civil revision, the Court stayed the execution proceedings without any terms. Upon being served in the revision case, respondent Jan Muhammad applied on 4-4-1985, under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C., for amendment seeking correction for substituting correct Khasra number in the plaint. Petition for amendment was registered as C.M.1695/85 in the Office. It came up before the Court on 9-6-1985 and notice was ordered to issue to the other side. On 22-12-1985, Court observed that; "In view of the nature of this matter, C.M. Shall be heard alongwith the main case as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners."
8. ' Seen from the above, only point involved for decision in the civil revision turned around the stated misdescription of the property which was subject-matter of pre-emption and its consequential effect. Mr. Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners vociferously contended that the defect about misdescription of the property sold was mortal to the suit and fatal to its success and the Court ought not to allow a chance to the pre-emptor to retrieve him out of the morass at this belated stage. Learned counsel referred to some decisions on powers of the Court and propriety to allow amendment to the pleadings, nature of the pre-emption suit and the effect of delayed application for amendment. As against this, learned counsel for pre-emptor- respondent submitted that the error regarding description was merely of a clerical as well as accidental nature and the Court had sample power and jurisdiction for allowing its correction by substitution of correct description of the property sold. He also invited the attention of the Court to number of decisions in this behalf. Of the decisions cited on either side more near the point were the cases in Sattan v. Islamuddin and 6 others 1982 CLC 289 (Lah.), Jalal Din v. Muhammad Aslam and 2 others 1982 CLC 1282 (SC AJ&K), Ghulam Nabi v. Sardar Nazir Ahmad' 1985 SCM R 824. In verity, the last case was on all fours and clearly helped and assisted the decision on the point.
9. There was neither doubt nor dispute about the land sold by Muhammad Din to the petitioners. Not only the registered sale-deed by which the land sought to be pre-empted was conveyed was produced in evidence as Exh.P3, copies of extracts from register Khasra Girdawari relating to the land in dispute were also tendered in proof and marked exhibits on either side. Petitioners neither raised any objection regarding misdescription of the land purchased by them in the written statement nor pointed out the defect in the lower appellate Court. Instead, they claimed possession as non-occupancy tenants on it and asserted their superior right of pre-emption on that score. For the first time, the alleged misdescription was surfaced in revision petition filed in and commented upon by this Court. Instead of mentioning Killa No,23, plaintiff described it as Killa No,22. Rest of the description of the land in dispute was correctly stated in the plaint. Name of the Chak, area sold, its square number and the date of sale and its mode through a registered deed on 27-2-1980 were correctly enumerated. Vendees/defendants were not misled by the alleged misdescription of one of the Khasra numbers included in sale. They themselves brought on record copy of an extract from register Khasra Girdawari relating to the land in dispute marked Exh. Dl and were thus aware of the true description of the land purchased by them. Apart from express provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure giving extensive powers to the Court to permit amendment for meeting the ends of justice in variety of circumstances, the Court is also amply equipped with inherent powers for remedying the clerical errors and accidental omissions creeping in the pleadings and also in its judgments, orders and decrees. It was clearly a pardonable fault and excusable in the existing circumstances of the case. The error was human, and, consequently condonable. Neither culpable negligence nor any mala fide was involved in the case. Error came to be committed by an Advocate, who could not read the correct Khasra number given in the registered sale-deed and mentioned it in the plaint as 22, instead of 23. The pre- emptor was not at fault. He had handed over the relevant papers to his Advocate and reposed confidence in him. If, the latter did not describe the property correctly in the plaint by an inadvertence, the fault could not be laid at the doors of the plaintiff. The moment, defect was pointed out in the revisional Court, the respondent applied for its correction. Having regard to the nature of correction sought to be made, there could neither be any serious nor unsurmountable hurdle for exercise of correctional jurisdiction and allowing the error to be remedied as prayed in C.M. 1695/85. In consequence, Killa No,23 shall be substituted for Killa No,22 in the plaint and consequent judgment and decree A of the trial Court. With the above modification, civil revision fails, and, is dismissed with costs.
10. Records be returned.