Full Text
% 17.8.2011
Present: Mr.Jatin Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner.
+CM (M) No.949/2011
*
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated 2 7.7.2011 wherein the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') had been dismissed; the contention in the application under Order 7 Rule4l
0 of the Code was that the name of the plaintiff has not been correctly depicted in the plaint; the son of Late Prithvi Nath Khashoo was P.N.
Khashoo and not A.N.Khashoo as has been noted in the plaint. Further contention was that the court fee had been purchased in the name of
A.N.Khashoo and not P.N.Khashoo. This application has been rejected.
Simultaneously the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of the code contending that the name of P.N.Khashoo had inadvertently been mentioned as "A.N.Khashoo" whereas the name of the son of late
Prithvi Nath Khashoo is "P.N.Khashoo". Court had noted that this is a typographical error and had allowed the prayer made in the application.
The application under Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code filed by the plaintiff for striking out the defence of the defendant on failure to file his written statement within the statutory period has already been dismissed.
This order is the order impugned before this Court. The grievance of the defendant is that the application under Section 151 of the Code could not have been allowed; it is an illegality, contention being that even
2011:DHC:7433 if presuming that there was a typographical error in the name of
"P.N.Khashoo" and it had wrongly been noted as "A.N.Khashoo" in the plaint; there is no explanation as to why court fee had been purchased in the name of A.N.Khashoo. Reliance has been placed upon AIR 1962 SC
JUDGMENT
527 Manohar La] Chopra Vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Rala Seth Hira]a]to support this submission. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner are bereft of force. The inherent jurisdiction of the court as contained in Section 151 of the code is a wide power; it is a power inherently available to the Court to pass such as order as it deems fit in the interest of justice. There is no dispute to the fact that the defendant was a tenant of Late Prithvi Nath Khashoo. There is also no dispute that Prithvi Nath Khashoo had one son. The submission of the plaintiff is that "A.N." is a typographical error and the abbreviation is "P.N." is clearly borne out from the record. The name "P.N.Khashoo" had been wrongly mentioned as "A.N.Khashoo" and this prayer for correction in the initials had rightly been allowed by the court below in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The court did not want the parties to be relegated to a further useless litigation on this score. Application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code had also been dismissed on this remise. The impugned order suffers from no infirmity; it calls for no inte ference. Dismissed. INDERMEET KAUR, J. AUGUST 17, 2011 2011:DHC:7433
JUDGMENT