Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sampuran Singh (Deceased By L.Rs.) vs Nandu And Ors. on 19 March, 2004
Equivalent citations: AIR2004P&H239, (2004)138PLR33, AIR 2004 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 239, (2004) 3 RECCIVR 44 2004 HRR 2 307, 2004 HRR 2 307
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
ORDER Surya Kant, J.
1. This civil revision has been directed by the petitioner against order dated 19-2-1985 passed by Sub Judge 1st Class, Jhajjar thereby declining the application for correction of Judgment and decree dated 2-12-1983 passed in Civil Suit No. 100 of 1980 titled Sampuran Singh v. Nandu etc.
2. Sampuran Singh (since deceased) predecessor of the present petitioners filed Civil Suit No. 100 of 1980 against Nandu etc. in the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Jhajjar for declaration that he was owner of land measuring 4 Kanals 6 Marias being 1/10th part of total land measuring 43 Kanals and 1/2 Maria being 1/2 of 86 Kanals 1 Maria fully mentioned in para 3 of the plaint and that Civil Decree No. 756 dated 9-1-1979 passed in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 4 was bogus, fictitious, illegal, null and void, ineffective and against the rights of the plaintiff and thus was liable to be set aside. Alternatively, it was also prayed that in case defendant Nos. 2 to 4 were found in possession of the suit land, then a decree for possession be also passed in favour of the plaintiff. The aforementioned suit was contested by the defendants who are respondents in the present civil revision.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed following issues for adjudication on 25-1-1982 :-
(1) Whether the decree in suit No. 756 decided on 9-1-79 titled Mahabir v. Nandu decided by Sub Judge 1st Class, Jhajjar is against law and facts and is not binding on, the rights of the plaintiff ? OPP (2) In case the plaintiff is not found in possession of the suit land whether he is entitled for the possession of the same ? OPP (3) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of the parties ? OPD (4) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD (5) Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fees and Jurisdiction ? OPD (6) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD (7) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct ? OPD (8) Relief.
4. After a detailed discussion in paras 10 and 11 of the judgment, the learned trial Court, while deciding Issue No. 1 concluded as under :--
"Since all the witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff have been consistent on the point that both the parties are Jats by Caste and are governed by Zamindara custom of Rohtak District, Nandu could not pass on his entire ancestral land to defendant Nos. 2 to 4 alone by suffering a decree in their favour to the exclusion of plaintiff and other children. Therefore, decree and order dated 9-1-79 passed in Civil Suit No. 756 titled Mahabir v. Nandu is declared to be against law and facts and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants."
5. The learned trial Court while deciding the Issue relating to the Relief, decreed the suit filed by Sampuran Singh deceased with the following conclusion :--
"Issue No. 8 :
'In view of my findings on various issues, the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and is decreed in his favour to the effect that he is owner of land measuring 4K-6M being 1/10th share of the land owned by Nandu. and also to possession of the same. Defendants are also burdened with costs of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly."
6. Sampuran Singh (since, deceased) thereafter moved an application under Section 152 of the Code of CM! Procedure seeking amendment of the decree sheet dated 2-12-1983 to the limited extent that in addition to declaring him owner-in-possession of land measuring 4 Kanals 6 Marias being 1/10th share of land owned by Nandu (since deceased), the decree dated 9-1-1979 passed in Civil Suit No. 756 titled Mahabir v. Nandu, be also declared against law and facts and not binding upon his rights as already held by the learned Civil Court while deciding Issue No. 1. The learned trial Court, however, vide its impugned order dated 19-2-1985, dismissed the aforementioned application on the premise that if the amendment as sought for, is allowed to be made in the decree sheet, it will amount to altering the Judgment dated 2-12-1983 itself and that a decree can be amended only in the case of a clerical or arithmetical mistake and that the proposed amendment being not of such nature, the application was liable to be dismissed. Hence, this civil revision.
7. While issuing notice to the respondents, this Court vide ad interim order dated 29-3-1994 restrained the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioner and they were also restrained from alienating the suit property till further orders. The respondents were served but no one has put in appearance.
8. Shri Balhara contends that the error in preparation of the decree sheet has arisen due to an inadvertent omission committed by the Court and the same could be corrected at any time under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the civil revision deserves to succeed.
10. Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure is based on a laudable principle that an act of the Court shall prejudice no party and that the Courts have a duty to see that their records are true arid represent the correct state of affairs. It is well settled that the power of the Court under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not restricted to correction of errors in decree drawn up by ministerial staff only, rather it can be exercised even to correct the Judgments pronounced and signed by the Court. The test to determine whether the slip or omission is accidental or not, can be gathered from the intention of the Judge in preparing the judgment or order. If on a cursory reading of the Judgment, one find that the grant of a specific relief is writ large, the omission thereof in the decree sheet would obviously be an accidental omission falling-within the four corners of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It cannot be overlooked that the procedural laws are primarily meant to do Justice between the parties. If there are mistakes which are capable of being rectified and they answer the description of the mistakes under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court should invariably rectify the mistakes and do justice between the parties.
11. Coming to the facts of the present case, there can absolutely be no doubt that while deciding Suit No. 100 of 1980 vide Judgment dated 2-12-1983, the learned Civil Court, under Issue No. 1, specifically held that the consent decree No. 756, dated 9-1 -1979 passed in civil suit titled as Mahabir v. Nandu, was against law and facts and not binding upon the rights of the deceased, plaintiff (Sampuran Singh). In fact, Sampuran Singh could have been declared owner in possession of land measuring 4 Kanals, 6 Marias, as held by the learned Court under Issue No. 8, only after setting aside the aforementioned decree. The non-repetition of this relief under Issue No. 8 or its omission in the decree sheet, therefore, are the omissions attributable to the Court or its ministerial staff. The learned civil Court, therefore, ought to have corrected this error by suitably modifying not only para 14 of the Judgment dated 2-12-1983 whereby Issue No. 8 relating to Relief was decided, but also by a consequential correction in the decree sheet.
12. In view of what has been stated above, the civil revision is accepted and impugned order dated 19-2-1985 is set aside. While accepting the application filed by the petitioners under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is ordered that necessary correction be made in the judgment dated 2-12-1983 as also in the decree sheet prepared pursuant to the same to the effect that consent decree No. 756, dated 9-1-1979 in the civil suit titled Mahabir v. Nandu is declared against law and facts and not binding upon the rights of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, namely, deceased Sampuran Singh.
No order as to costs.