Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 92 (ORI)

Maheswar Pati v. Golam Rasul

2014-02-03

M.M.DAS

body2014
JUDGMENT M.M. DAS, J. : This writ application has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 03.02.2012 passed in C.S. No.246 of 1989 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Balasore. 2.An application was filed by the decree-holder-plaintiff in the said suit under Order-VI, Rule-17 CPC read with Sections-151 and 152 CPC praying to amend the mouza of the suit schedule land as ‘Puruna Balasore’ in place of ‘Sunhat’. The said application for amendment was allowed on 07.04.2011. Being aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party (present petitioner) preferred W.P.(C) No.27031 of 2011. This Court disposed of the said writ application at the stage of admission with liberty to the petitioner in the said writ application to approach the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Balasore and raise the objections before the said Court with regard to the correct description of the property in the decree pursuant to the impugned order dated 07.04.2011. This Court further directed that if the petitioner approaches the learned Court below, the learned Court below would be free to pass appropriate order in accordance with law after affording opportunity of being heard to the parties and the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of the said order. Thereafter, the judgment-debtor (petitioner) filed objection to the said petition filed by the decree-holder (opposite party herein) and the matter was heard afresh. Various case laws were cited by both the parties. The learned trial Court, without analyzing the applicability of any of the said case laws to the facts of the case, by the impugned order, held as follows :- “Hence, taking cue of the aforesaid decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the DHR and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that there is no impediment to correct the clerical error made by the plaintiff, at the time of filing of amended plaint, basing on which the decree was passed showing the mouza as ‘Sunhat’ in place of ‘Puruna Balasore’ in the schedule of the plaint of the decree. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and disposed of.” 3.This Court finds that the learned trial Court has not applied its judicial mind in passing the aforesaid order, as it has neither found out the applicability of the ratio of the decisions cited before him to the facts of the case nor has assigned any reason for its conclusion. 4.In the result, the impugned order dated 30.2.2012 passed in C.S. No.246 of 1989 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Balasore under Annexure-7 stands quashed and the matter is remitted back to the learned Civil Judge Junior Division), Balasore to rehear the application filed by the plaintiff (decree-holder) on 16.12.2010, treating the same to be an application under Section 152 CPC filed in the aforesaid suit, i.e., C.S. No.246 of 1989. For the aforesaid purpose, the matter being very old, the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 25th February, 2014 and file a certified copy of this order before it. Thereafter, the learned trial Court shall proceed to hear the said application keeping the above observation in view and in accordance with law so as to dispose of the same by the end of April, 2014. With the aforesaid direction, the writ application stands disposed of. Application disposed of.