ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- “(i) It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure-11) and order dated 05.07.2016 (Annexure-7) passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar by allowing the application dated 03.02.2016 and 01.08.2016 (Annexure-8) (ii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner; (iii) Cost of the petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that:- On 03.01.1985, the petitioner entered into an agreement for sale to purchase the suit property for a sum of Rs.36,000/-. He paid the entire consideration amount to the respondent No.1-Late Shri Rakhram on the same day. In this regard, an agreement took place between the parties and possession of the land in-question was also delivered to the petitioner. In the said agreement, description of the land was given as “Chak 6 B.P.M., Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar Square No.119/331-25 Bigha and Square No.116/331-24.10 Bigha total 49.10 Bigha”. 3. It was also agreed that after getting sale permission, the sale deed would be executed in favour of the petitioner, but, the respondents neither got the permission to sale, nor the sale deed got executed. Thereafter, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid to the respondent No.1-Late Shri Ramrakh on 15.06.2005. 4. As per the terms of the agreement, the petitioner filed a suit in the year 2008 for Specific Performance of Contract, as the respondent did not execute the sale deed in-question. On 10.07.2013, the suit was further amended and an amended plaint was filed. A written statement was filed in the suit by the respondent No.1/2-Smt. Vijay Laxmi, whereby she denied the averments made in the plaint and also refused the execution of any agreement. 5. On 10.07.2013, the suit was further amended and an amended plaint was filed. A written statement was filed in the suit by the respondent No.1/2-Smt. Vijay Laxmi, whereby she denied the averments made in the plaint and also refused the execution of any agreement. 5. In the said suit, the learned trial court framed issues regarding the agreement in question, which are reproduced hereinbelow:- ^^1- vk;k Áfroknh ds }kjk oknh ds i{k esa pd 6 ch ih ,e rg jk;flaguxj dk equ 119@131 dh 25 ch?kk o equ 116@31 dh 24&10 ch?kk dqy 42&10 chek dk cspku dk ,d bdjkjukek fnukad 3-1-85 dks dj bdjkjukek fd;k x;k dk cspku vius i{k esa djokus dk vf/kdkjh gSA &oknh 2- vk;k oknh vius bdjkjukek ds fgLls dh ikyuk gsrq ges'kk rS;kj rRij o bPNqd jgk gS & oknh 3- vk;k oknh Áfroknh ds fo:} LFkkà fu"ks/kkKk Hkh ÁkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA & oknh 4- vk;k oknh dk okn vUnj fe;kn gSA & Áfroknh** 6. During pendency of the suit, the respondent No.1/1-Binjha Ram, filed a compromise dated 06.02.2012 vide which, he admitted the agreement and stated that he has no objection, if half of the land is transferred in favour of petitioner, which fact was verified by the learned trial court on 15.02.2012. 7. On 22.01.2016, when the Patwari visited the land in-question for attachment in pursuance of providing the Bank Loan to the petitioner Krishan Lal, he supplied him copy of the agreement to which, the Patwari pointed out the error committed in the agreement regarding description of the property to which, he filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on 03.02.2016 seeking amendment in the pleading. The application preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 05.07.2016 on the ground that description of the property given in the plaint is in accordance with the agreement dated 03.01.1985 and there is no such clerical error. 8. The application preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 05.07.2016 on the ground that description of the property given in the plaint is in accordance with the agreement dated 03.01.1985 and there is no such clerical error. 8. After dismissal of the abovementioned application, the petitioner moved another application on 01.08.2016 under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the pleading as well as rectification in the agreement dated 03.01.1985, in which, the petitioner specifically stated that due to the mutual mistake committed by both the parties, “Square No.116/331” was mentioned in the agreement instead of “Square No.116/330” and also proposed for amendment in the plaint for rectification of the ‘Square Number’ in the agreement, relevant portion of which is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:- ^^izLrkfor la'kks/ku%& ¼d½ ;g fd bZdjkjukek fnukad 03-01-1985 ds izFke i`"B ij Hkwfe fooj.k vUrxZr ^^eqjCck ua0 116@331^^ ds LFkku ij ^^eq uaŒ 116@330^^ fd;k tkosaA ¼[k½ ;g fd okn&i= esa Hkwfe ds fooj.k ds laca/k esa tgka&tgka equaŒ 116@331 vafdr gqvk gS mls eq0 ua0 116@330 fd;k tkosaA ;g la'kks/ku ckn i= ds vuqrks"k esa Hkh fd;k tkosaA ¼x½ ;g fd oknh lnHkkoh gS mlus tkucq>dj dksbZ xYrh xQyr ugha dh gSA^^ 9. The respondent No.1/1-Binjha Ram, admitted the contents of the application preferred by the petitioner and filed reply in this regard on 07.09.2016, but the respondent No.1/2-Smt. Vijay Laxmi in her reply dated 14.09.2016, denied the averments made in the application preferred by the petitioner by stating that there was no mutual mistake in the said agreement. 10. After hearing the arguments advanced by both the parties, the learned trial court vide impugned order dated 16.09.2016, rejected the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC preferred by the petitioner on the ground, that for seeking rectification in a document, a separate suit can be filed. The learned trial court further observed that no amendment was sought in the plaint regarding rectification of the agreement. 11. Being aggrieved of the orders dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure11) and 05.07.2016 (Annexure-7) passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition. 12. The learned trial court further observed that no amendment was sought in the plaint regarding rectification of the agreement. 11. Being aggrieved of the orders dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure11) and 05.07.2016 (Annexure-7) passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition. 12. Learned counsel Shri N.L. Joshi, representing the petitioner, submitted that:- (a) The learned trial court has committed a grave error in passing the impugned orders dated 16.09.2016 and 05.07.2016 and has failed to consider the provisions of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relies upon Section 26 read with sub-Section (1) and (2) of the Special Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1963’), which reads as below:- "26. When instrument may be rectified.— (1) When, through fraud or a mutual mistake of the parties, a contract or other instrument in writing [not being the articles of association of a company to which the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) applies] does not express their real intention, then— (a) either party or his representative in interest may institute a suit to have the instrument rectified; or (b) the plaintiff may, in any suit in which any right arising under the instrument is in issue, claim in his pleading that the instrument be rectified; or (c) a defendant in any such suit as is referred to in clause (b), may, in addition to any other defence open to him, ask for rectification of the instrument. (2) If, in any suit in which a contract or other instrument is sought to be rectified under sub-section (1), the court finds that the instrument, through fraud or mistake, does not express the real intention of the parties, the court may, in its discretion, direct rectification of the instrument so as to express that intention, so far as this can be done without prejudice to rights acquired by third persons in good faith and for value." Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon sub-Section (4) of the Act of 1963, which reads as below:- "(4). No relief for the rectification of an instrument shall be granted to any party under this section unless it has been specifically claimed: Provided that where a party has not claimed any such relief in his pleading, the court shall, at any stage of the proceeding, allow him to amend the pleading on such terms as may be just for including such claim.” (b) The respondent No.1/1-Binjha Ram, son of the respondent Late Shri Ramrakh, has admitted the averments made in the agreement in his reply dated 07.09.2016 and has filed a compromise before the learned trial court. The respondent No.1/2 Smt. Vijay Laxmi has not disputed the mistake of square numbers in her written statement. As per the provisions of law, separate suit is not required to be filed but rectification of document could be ordered in any suit. In this regard, he submitted that the petitioner has prayed for making amendment in the pleading as well as for rectification of the document and filing of a separate suit will lead to the multiplicity of the litigation and by allowing the proposed amendment/rectification of the document, it will not change the nature of the suit/reliefs but the learned trial court dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner in a very casual manner without considering the provisions of law. (c) Jamabandi of land of the respondent Late Shri Ramrakh shows Square No.116/330 and 119/331 as the Square No.116/331 belongs to one Sajana and not to Shri Ramrakh. Due to mutual mistake committed by both the parties, square number was mentioned as 116/331 instead of 116/330. In this regard, the learned trail court committed grave error by rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner. He urged that the present suit is a suit under specific performance of contract and therefore, typing error in the agreement, deserves to be corrected and the plaint be amended. 13. He placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Puran Ram Vs. Bhaguram & Anr. reported in (2010) 4 SCC 102 decided on 29.02.2008. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:- "16. As noted hereinearlier, the learned counsel for the respondent contended before us that the appellant could not get specific performance of the contract for sale unless he sued for rectification of the agreement for sale. reported in (2010) 4 SCC 102 decided on 29.02.2008. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:- "16. As noted hereinearlier, the learned counsel for the respondent contended before us that the appellant could not get specific performance of the contract for sale unless he sued for rectification of the agreement for sale. We are unable to accept the contention of the leaned counsel for the respondent for the simple reason that in this case, by filing the application for amendment in the suit for specific performance of the contract for sale, the appellant had sought the rectification of the agreement also. It is sufficient to observe that it was not necessary for the appellant to file a separate suit for that purpose as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent. It is open to the appellant to claim the relief of rectification of the instrument in the instant suit. The amendment, in our view, in the agreement was a formal one and there was no reason why such amendment could not be allowed. 17. The other ground on which the High Court has refused to permit the appellant to amend the plaint is that if the amendment is allowed, the suit shall be converted into a suit for declaration. We are unable to accept this view of the High Court. In our view, the suit is a suit for specific performance of the contract for sale simpliciter and only a part of the description of the suit property in the agreement as well as in the plaint was sought to be corrected or amended by the appellant by filing the application for amendment of the plaint. If we are permitted to look into the description of the suit property from the original plaint as well as from the application for amendment, it would be clear that the description of the suit property has been kept intact excepting that instead of Chak No.3 SSM, Chak No.3 SLM, late on converted to Chak No.3 SWM, has been sought to be replaced. Therefore it is difficult to conceive that by such amendment, that is, instead of Chak No.3 SSM, if Chak No.3 SLM, later on converted to SWM is substituted, either the description of the suit property or the nature of the suit would change. Therefore it is difficult to conceive that by such amendment, that is, instead of Chak No.3 SSM, if Chak No.3 SLM, later on converted to SWM is substituted, either the description of the suit property or the nature of the suit would change. This is only a change in a part of the description of the suit property, which was wrongly described by mutual mistake. Therefore, in our view, this change in a part of the description of the suit property in the plaint cannot convert the suit for specific performance of the contract to a suit for declaration. In any view of the matter, the relief claimed in the suit remained the same i.e. a decree for specific performance of the contract for sale and by amendment, no declaration has been sought for in respect of the instrument. 18. …………………. 19. Before parting with this judgment, we may deal with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the application for amendment could not be allowed inasmuch as the same was barred by limitation. We are unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. In this regard, we may observe that the court may, in its discretion, allow an application for amendment of the plaint even where the relief sought to be added by amendment is allegedly barred by limitation. This view was also expressed by this Court in Pankaja v. Yellapa. In that decision, it was held that there is no absolute rule that in such a case, the amendment should not be allowed and the discretion of the court in that regard depends on the facts and circumstances of the case and such discretion has to be exercised on a judicious evaluation thereof. It was further held in that decision that an amendment, which subserves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation, should be allowed. 20. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that allowing and rejecting an application for amendment of a plaint is really the discretion of the court and amendment of the plaint also should not be refused on technical grounds. In this connection reliance can be placed on a decision of this Court in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply. In para 8 of the said decision this Court observed that: "8. In this connection reliance can be placed on a decision of this Court in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply. In para 8 of the said decision this Court observed that: "8. Since the name in which the action was instituted was merely a misdescription of the original plaintiff, no question of the limitation arises : the plaint must be deemed on amendment to have been instituted in the name of the real plaintiff, on the date on which it was originally instituted.” A reading of this observation would amply clear the position that no question of limitation shall arise when misdescription of the name of the original plaintiff or misdescription of the suit property arose in a particular case. Apart from that in the present case, although, the relief claimed before as well as after the amendment remained the same i.e. a decree for specific performance of the contract for sale, even then, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as noted hereinearlier, we do not find why the High Court should have interfered with the discretion used by the trial court in allowing the application for amendment of the plaint." 14. In support of his contentions, learned counsel representing the petitioner also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of the Court in the case of Phool Chand Vs. Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar & Anr. in SB Civil Writ Petition No.16297/2017. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:- "It is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance with the contention that the respondent No.2 has executed an agreement to sale in his favour for his agricultural lands, however later on, refused to get the sale deed registered. Along with the said suit, copy of the agreement has also been produced and from perusal of the same, it is clear that the agreement is in relation to the agricultural land situated in Chak 10 PTD, however, in the plaint, it is averred that the agreement is in relation to the land situated in Chak 8 PTDB. It appears that the wrong description of the name of the village in the plaint is due to inadvertence only. It appears that the wrong description of the name of the village in the plaint is due to inadvertence only. Even if such amendment is allowed to be carried out, the nature of the suit will not be changed as it will remain a suit for specific performance of contract. In such circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.11.2017 is set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 is also allowed. The respondent No.2 is also permitted to suitably amend the pleadings in the written statement if he is advised to do so. The trial court is directed to proceed with the suit expeditiously.” He, thus, urged, that the writ petition filed by the petitioner, may kindly be allowed while setting aside the impugned orders dated 16.09.2016 and 05.07.2016, passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar, by allowing the applications dated 03.02.2016 and 01.08.2016. 15. Per contra, learned counsel Shri Rahul Sharma and Shri Prashant Sharma, representing the respondents, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel and submitted that; (a) the case of present petitioner is false and fabricated, as the petitioner has placed forged documents on record. For rectification of any document, only a suit can be instituted. No rectification in the instrument can be ordered without initiating regular trial in a suit for specific performance of the contract or agreement to sale. That, neither the petitioner pleaded any rectification in the suit nor any indication was present in the original suit filed by the petitioner and the suit cannot be rectified in a routine or casual manner. (b) Late Shri Ramrakh never entered into an agreement for sale on 03.01.1985. Neither the possession of land comprises out of Chak No.6 BPM, Tehsil Raisinghnagar of Square No.119/331 and Square No.116/331, nor any other land was given to the petitioner. (c) the respondent No.1/1-Binjha Ram, son of Late Shri Ramrakh, and the petitioner, joined hands with each other because of their mutual benefit. Neither the possession of land comprises out of Chak No.6 BPM, Tehsil Raisinghnagar of Square No.119/331 and Square No.116/331, nor any other land was given to the petitioner. (c) the respondent No.1/1-Binjha Ram, son of Late Shri Ramrakh, and the petitioner, joined hands with each other because of their mutual benefit. When the respondent late Shri Ramrakh had never entered into the agreement to sale of any land to the petitioner, then no question arises of mentioning incorrect square number i.e. 116/331 or 116/330, as the said mistake was committed by the petitioner at the time of manipulating forged agreement hurriedly, therefore, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, was rightly dismissed by the learned court below. (d) When the petitioner failed to seek amendment in the pleadings, he then, again moved the same application by adding Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1963’), and the learned trial court was perfectly justified in rejecting the said application. A bare perusal of Section 26 of the Act of 1963, clearly reveals that any instrument can only be rectified by a regular suit when it is shown that through fraud or mutual mistake of a party, a contract or other instrument in writing does not express their real intention. This rectification can only be made after filing a regular suit. Section 26 (3) of the Act of 1963, clearly envisages that a contract in writing may first be rectified then its specific performance can be initiated. (e) The relief prayed by the petitioner cannot be awarded to him just by his oral submissions, more particularly, when the suit was instituted by the petitioner, this mistake was not pointed out in his plaint, nor is adumbrate till date. With the aforesaid submissions, they, thus, urged, that the writ petition may kindly be dismissed with costs. 16. After hearing the arguments advanced by learned counsel representing the petitioner, learned counsel representing the respondents and after minutely perusing the impugned orders and the documents available on record, this Court is of the firm opinion, that the important fact of the matter is that the agreement dated 03.01.1985, in which the petitioner is seeking correction/amendment for correcting it from “Square No.116/331” to “Square No.116/330”, is being denied by the respondents in totality and contended that the same is manipulated and is a forged document. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel are at a different footing from the present case because in those cases, there is a specific finding of the Court that if the correction/amendment in the agreement/suit is permitted, it shall not change the description of the land in dispute. However, in the present case, if the amendment/correction in the Square Number from “116/331” to “116/330” is allowed, then, it shall change the description of the land in dispute which is the subject matter of the suit, which is filed by the petitioner and there is no prayer in the suit No.05/2008 (184/14) in relation to correction/amendment in the agreement dated 03.01.1985 and the petitioner has the remedy for instituting a suit available under Section 26 of the Act of 1963. Thus, this Court is in agreement with the findings recorded by the learned court below vide order dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure-11). 17. As an upshot of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure-11) and 05.07.2016 (Annexure-7), passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar, do not suffer from any illegality or any infirmity whatsoever, warranting interference therein. 18. The writ petition is dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed. 19. No order as to costs.