If the plaint relates to agricultural land and the plaintiff is illiterate, if should be scrutinised with special care according to the following directions:
(i) The Presiding Officer shall ascertain by careful examination of the plaintiff or his agent, whether the prayer in the plaint corresponds in all particulars with the exact relief which the plaintiff orally describes himself as seeking. If the oral statements of the plaintiff or his agent are at variance with the written description of his claim, the plaint shall, in his or his agent‘s presence, be returned for amendment, and no amended plaint should be accepted until the Court is satisfied that it correctly expresses the claim which the plaintiff desires to establish.
(ii) Every such plaint shall be accompanied by a statement, in the prescribed form setting forth the particulars relating thereto recorded in the Settlement record and in the last Jamabandi. This statement shall be verified by a signature of the Patwari of the Circle in which the land concerned is situate. Where by reason of partition, river action or other cause, the entries in the Settlement record and in the last Jamabandi do not accord, a brief explanation of the reason should be given in the column of remarks. Where the suit is for a specific plot with definite boundaries, it shall also be accompanied by a map, drawn to scale, showing clearly the specific plot claimed, or in relation to which the decrees is to be made, and so much of the fields adjoining it, also drawn to scale, as may be sufficient to facilitate identification. The specific plot and adjoining fields shall be numbered in accordance with the statement and the map shall be certified as corrected by the Patwari or other person who prepared it. Where, however, the suit is for the whole of one or more khasra numbers as shown in the Settlement map, or a share in such numbers, and not for a specific portion thereof no map will be required unless it is necessary for other reasons to show the boundaries of such khasra numbers.
“Where the land was sufficiently described in the suit as Khasra No. 191. Which was exchanged. It was held that it was only after the consolidation of holdings proceedings that in lieu of this land some other land was allotted, particulars of which were given in the execution application. The executing Court, while determining the actual land in lieu of the land which was the subject matter of the decree, does not go behind the decree because, in Law, the decree holder is entitled to the possession of the land mentioned in exchange deed and if during the consolidation proceedings, certain other Khasra number is given in lieu of this land, the decree holder would be entitled to get possession of the same”. [Ghisa Ram v. Sukhi Ram, 1977 (79) Pun. LR. 745].
If the plaintiff seeks the recovery of money, the plaint, should state the precise amount, as far as the case admits. In a suit for mesne profits or unsettled accounts it is sufficient to state the amount approximately 3(or for movables in the possession of the defendant, or for debts of which the value he cannot deligently estimate) it is sufficient to state the amount approximately.
