Serial No. 36 Regular List. HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) 369/2023 MANZOOR AHMAD SOFI …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Shuja-ul-Haq, Advocate VERSUS ABDUL RASHID SOFI AND ANR. …Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Suwaiba, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE. ORDER 08.08.2025 1. In the instant petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution, order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the Court of Sub-Judge Baramulla in case titled as “Manzoor Ahmad Sofi versus Abdul Rashid Sofi and another” is under challenge. 2. Facts emerging from the record would reveal that the petitioner herein filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the Court below against the defendants/respondents herein pertaining to land covered under Survey No. 1908/411, 1909/402 and 1910/426 including a house and bandsaw Mill existing on the said land, that having due to inadvertence, wrongly mentioned Survey Nos. 1200, 1209 and 1312 in Para 5 thereof qua the land in question and after noticing the said mistake, the plaintiff/petitioner moved an application seeking table amendment qua the said wrongly stated Survey Nos. in Para 5 of the plaint which application however came to be rejected by the Trial Court in terms of the impugned order. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Having regard to the aforesaid position the Trial Court ought not to have rejected the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner for effecting corrections to the Survey Nos. of the subject matter of land in Para 5 of the plaint, in that, the said corrections cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be either changing the frame of the suit or the nature thereof, in that law being settled that amendments in the pleadings are to be allowed at any stage of the proceedings to advance the cause of justice inasmuch as to determine the issues in a case effectually and conclusively. 4. Accordingly, petition is allowed and the application filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court for effecting table amendment in Para 5 of the suit is allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs. Two thousand to be payable by the plaintiff/petitioner to the counsel for the defendant/respondent, and consequently the impugned order shall be deemed to have set aside. 5. Disposed of. 6. Registry is directed to send down a copy of this order to the Court below. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 08.08.2025 Sabreena