... Petitioner Versus ... Respondent Present: Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Virinder K. Shukla, Advocate for the respondent. 1. Present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.10.2024 whereby the plaintiff-respondent has been permitted to file a fresh affidavit of PW-4 Avinash Chander Garg, Draftsman. 2. Briefly the facts relevant to the present are that the plaintiff- respondent filed a suit for grant of a decree for declaration to the effect that he is owner of 08 Marlas 2½ Sarsai of land as fully described in the plaint. The site plan was attached with the plaint. In para 2 of the plaint the descriptions and dimensions of the property were clearly stated. Even in para 5 the same was reiterated. The written statement was filed by the defendant-petitioner. The evidence of PW4 was recorded on 18.09.2024 and on the same day he was also cross-examined. On the very next day an application was filed for permission to tender a fresh affidavit of PW4 Avinash Chander Garg as in the affidavit tendered on 18.09.2024 there were two typographical mistakes - (i) JITENDER KUMAR 2026.01.15 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh and; (ii) that the length on southern side adjacent to Manjit Singh has been typed as 38’.6” instead of 37’.6”. Reply was filed to the said application. Vide JITENDER KUMAR 2026.01.15 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh JITENDER KUMAR 2026.01.15 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh JITENDER KUMAR 2026.01.15 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh JITENDER KUMAR 2026.01.15 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh