Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kartar Singh vs Harchand Singh And Ors. on 7 September, 1993
Equivalent citations: (1994)106PLR25
Author: Harjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Harjit Singh Bedi
ORDER Harjit Singh Bedi, J.
1. The plaintiff (petitioner herein) filed a suit against the respondents for joint possession of 56 Bighas 8 Biswas of land, the plaint having been drafted on the basis of the jamabandi for the year 1973-74. The suit of the petitioner was decreed to the extent of his share and the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 was dismissed. It has been stated by Mr. Hemant Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner that the second appeal filed by the respondent in this Court was also dismissed. After obtaining the decree in his favour, the petitioner, approached the Executing Court for the execution of the same, when it transpired that some of the khasra numbers mentioned in the decree and the area thereof, were incorrect and some khasra numbers which ought to have been excluded, had been included while others which ought to have been included, had been excluded. It also transpired that the. actual land was 48 Bighas 7 Biswas and not 56 Bighas 8 Biswas, as claimed in the plaint. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application on March 30, 1983 before the trial Court under Section 152 of the CPC praying that the decree sheet be amended as the mistakes made therein had been occasioned due to the mistakes in the jamabandi which had been given to the petitioner by the revenue authority. It was stated in the application that these mistakes were accidental in nature which needed to be rectified. The trial Court dismissed the application on May 8, 1984 holding that there had been no accidental slip on the part of any Court official and that in any case, the mistake that was sought to be corrected, was not within the purview of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure as there was no clerical or arithmetical mistake. Aggrieved by the order dated May 8, 1984, the present petition has been filed.
2. Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged, relying upon Pritam Singh v. P. Didar Singh and Anr., 1976 Rev.L.R. 586 and Mohinder Singh v. Teja Singh, A.I.R. 1979 Punjab and Haryana, 47, that the scope of Section 152 C.P.C. could not be artificially limited and was wide enough to correct a mistake or of an accidental slip or omission traceable to the conduct of the parties themselves and so palpably clear that no body could possibly have any doubt as to what the parties or the Court meant and such corrections could be made under Section 152 of the Code. He has also urged that the accidental slip or error envisaged by Section 152 C.P.C. could be corrected even at the stage of execution by making necessary corrections in the decree sheet and it was not necessary that an amendment should be first sought in the plaint.
3. Mr. Gurcharan Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has, however, urged that the khasra numbers recorded in the decree sheet were incorporated on the basis of the claim made by the petitioner in the plaint and these numbers had been incorporated in the judgment as also the decree and as such, Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not come to the assistance of the petitioner. He has also urged that it was not clear from the evidence recorded in the application as to which khasra Numbers were ordered to be added and deleted in the decree sheet. He has relied upon Lungya Balya Dhangar v. Bansilal Pusaram Mahesari, AIR 1950, Nagpur 95, to urge that when an investigation into the nature of correction was required to be made, Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, could not come into play.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the findings recorded by the executing Court on the application. Section 152 of the Code reads as under:-
"Clerical or arithmetical mistake in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties."
A reading of the aforesaid Section indicates that it deals with two kinds of situations (1) correction of clerical or arithmetical mistake in judgments, decrees, or orders and (ii) errors arising is those judgments, decrees or orders from any accidental slip or omission. Mr. Hemant Kumar Gupta seems to be right when he says that his case is covered under the second part of the Section inasmuch as that the errors in the plaint followed by the decree had been occasioned from an accidental slip or omission made at the time of drafting of the plaint on the basis of the incorrect jamabandi provided by the revenue authority. It is, therefore, apparent that this part of the Section deals with an error which is not at the instance of the Court, but could have been occasioned by some outside agency as Well. It would be noticed that both the judgments cited by Mr. Gupta pertain to the correction of khasra numbers and the mistakes in the decree sheet had' occasioned due to the fact that incorrect jamabandi had been provided by the revenue authority. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondents has, however, no bearing on the facts of the case in hand. There can be no dispute with the proposition enunciated in the judgment that by taking recourse to Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the parties cannot get embodied in the plaint something which is an after thought, but that is not the situation here. There is no dispute regarding the identity of the land in question and the area has to be only incorporated in the decree sheet with its correct Khasra Number.
5. The decree for joint possession to the extent of the share of the petitioner had been granted as far back as in 1980. The petitioner has not been able to execute the decree so far and it is, therefore, necessary that case be now expedited. The present petition is, therefore, allowed and it is directed that necessary change be made forthwith in the decree sheet as enunciated in the application dated March 30, 1983, and the decree be executed within six months thereafter. It is also asserted by Mr. Gupta that there is a reference regarding Khasra No. 904, which has been incorrectly incorporated in the judgment and admittedly that Khasra number does not belong to either of the parties. It is, accordingly, directed that Khasra No. 904 be deleted from the decree sheet. The parties are directed to appear before the executing Court on October 5,1993.