Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(10/04/2018) The applicant has filed the present revision challenging the order dated 26/10/2017 passed by 18 th Additional District Judge, District Jabalpur in MJC No.10/2014 thereby rejecting an application preferred by the applicant under Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent has filed a civil suit for declaration, partition and possession in respect of house Nos.183, 184 and 185 situated at Cherital, Jabalpur. The said civil suit was decreed vide judgment

--2- and decree dated 17/11/2006 in which this Court has held that the sale deed which has been executed by the parties were void under the law and the defendant did not get any right, title and interest in the suit property. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the applicant has preferred an appeal before this Court which was registered as F.A. 139/2007. This Court vide judgment and decree dated 12/09/2011 has set aside the order passed by the trial Court and held that both the sale deeds are valid under the law. The plaintiff/respondent thereafter filed execution proceedings against the applicant. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the present applicant came to know that new number of old house No..184 A, B, C was wrongly mentioned and area of the house No. 184 A B C was not mentioned in the decree. The correct new number of the lod house no.184 A, B, C is 2066, 2067, 2068 and area 1073 square feet, therefore, he filed an application under Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC for correcting the said house numbers in the decree for proper adjudication of the execution proceedings. The decree holder i.e. respondent has denied all the averments in the application but he

510. In such circumstances, the rejection of the application under Order 20 Rule 18 read with
--6- Section 151 & 152 of CPC by the trial Court while passing the order impugned is wholly unsustainable in law and the argument of non- applicant is hereby repelled."

As per the said judgment, if the house numbers are not mentioned correctly in the preliminary decree and also in final decree then it is the duty of the Court to rectify such mistake. In the present case also, preliminary decree was drawn and thereafter the final decree was also framed. In both the decrees, the house number is incorrectly mentioned, the petitioner therefore filed an application for correcting the said mistake.

As per the said judgment, every Court has an inherent power to vary or amend its own decree or order so as to carry out its meaning. This power can be exercised at any time.

--8-

7. In light of the aforesaid judgment, the order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable. Accordingly, this revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 26/10/2017 passed by the Executing Court is hereby set aside. The application preferred by the applicant under Sections 151 & 152 of the CPC is hereby allowed, with not order as to costs.