IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 8324 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 20, 2010 Shiv Kumar and another. …Petitioners Versus Gurdas Ram and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Defendant-petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 30.09.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mukerian, whereby allowing the application under Section 152 C.P.C. directing amendment in the decree-sheet in accordance with the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. C.R.No.8324 of 2010 From the record, it reveals that learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 09.03.1979 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for possession over the suit land. Appeal therefrom was dismissed by the First Appellate Court, as well as, by this Court and thereafter, SLP was also dismissed. Having realized that in the decree-sheet, delivery of possession by the defendant to the plaintiffs is not mentioned, application under Section 152 C.P.C. was moved requesting the Court to correct the decree in accordance with the judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that since suit was filed for declaration and prohibitory injunction, hence, decree sheet showing that the suit is decreed for declaration and injunction is perfectly valid. Learned counsel for the petitioners has shown to me Photostat copy of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court dated 05.10.1982, perusal of which reveals that learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 09.03.1979 decreed the suit for possession over the suit land. Since judgment passed by the Trial Court stood confirmed up to the Apex Court, hence, in the opinion of this Court, suit was decreed for possession over the suit land. Since judgment was for the possession over the suit land, hence 2 C.R.No.8324 of 2010 decree-sheet should have also been drawn up in accordance with the judgment. If decree is not drawn up in accordance with the judgment omitting “suit is decreed for possession over the suit land”, then that is apparent clerical error, which was rightly corrected by the Trial Court. Dismissed. December 20, 2010 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3