1. It is very unfortunate that the learned Judge did not appreciate the substance and importance of the application which was made to him. There has been an unfortunate error--for our purpose it does not matter very much--in the paper record of the case owing to a misdescription of a certain locality in the plaint. That error, unless corrected after discovery, must necessarily be carried forward into the decree and either injuriously affect the rights of the plaintiff or misrepresent the true state of facts. In either case a Court, when that condition of things is present, has jurisdiction u/s 152 of the Code to correct it. The application was a perfectly proper one made under the right section and describing in paragraph 5 the nature of the accident which had led to the misdescription. It was supported by the affidavit of one Surjan Singh, the plaintiff himself. There was no possible legal objection which could be raised to the application. Unfortunately, the learned Judge has decided:

(1) that the applicant had not produced any paper before the Court, whereas he had produced a very important paper, namely, his affidavit;

(2) that he had not satisfied the learned Judge that there was any law justifying the amendment of the plaint.

2. Section 152 is the widest possible law justifying the amendment of any particular proceedings due to mistake of this kind. The matter must go back to the learned Judge with directions to correct the plaint in accordance with the application of the plaintiff and, after notice to the other side, to correct the decree and, unless anything has happened between the plaint and the decree to affect his judgment on the substance of the dispute, the decree must follow the corrected plaint.