C.R.No. 554 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on January 28,2010. Surjit Singh -- Petitioner vs. Rakesh Kumar --Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Rajesh Bhatheja,Advocate, for the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral) The petitioner has challenged order of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moga dated 27.11.2009, whereby an application filed by the respondent under Section 33 read with Sections 151,152 and 153 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC'), was allowed and decree- sheet was ordered to be prepared. Brief background of the case is that respondent filed a suit for specific performance against the petitioner, which was decreed on 21.11.2003 on the basis of a compromise Ex.CX. However, inadvertently, decree sheet was not ordered to be prepared. Respondent/decree holder filed an execution application. The petitioner/judgment debtor had filed objection in respect of the decree which led to the filling of the present application. The application filed by the respondent has been allowed by the learned Court below on the ground that inadvertently, decree has not been prepared in terms of the compromise between the parties and for that purpose relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of S.Satnam C.R.No. 554 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Singh and another Vs. Surender Kaur and another 2009 (1) Civil Court Cases 597 (SC) wherein it is held that the Court should always be ready and willing to rectify the mistake it has committed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once no order was passed with regard to preparation of decree when the judgment was delivered on the basis of compromise on 21.11.2003, the trial Court had no jurisdiction to order the same under Section 33 read with Sections 151 to 153 of the CPC. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record with his assistance. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of law namely Sections 33,151,152 and 153 of CPC, which are reproduced below:- 33. Judgment and decree:- The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment, and on such judgment a decree shall follow. 151. Saving of inherent powers of Court: -Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. 152. Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders: - Clerical or arithmetical mistakes 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. 153. General Power to amend: -The Court may, at any time, and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it may thing fit, amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit; and all necessary amendments shall be made for C.R.No. 554 of 2010 (O&M) 3 the purpose of determining the real question or issue raised by or depending on such proceeding. According to facts of the case, the respondent had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 08.6.1998 in which a compromise was arrived at between the parties on the basis of which, the suit was disposed of on 21.11.2003. Section 33 of CPC specifically provides that the Court after the case has been heard shall pronounce the judgment and on such judgment a decree shall follow. The term 'judgment and decree' are defined under Section 2 (9) and 2 (2) of the CPC. According to Section 2 (9) judgment means statement given by the Judge on the grounds of a decree or order; and according to Section 2 (2) “decree” means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within [***] section 144, but shall not include-- (a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or (b) any order of dismissal for default. It also bears an explanation.-- that a decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final. Thus, whenever there is a judgment delivered it shall follow a C.R.No. 554 of 2010 (O&M) 4 decree but it shall not include any order from which an appeal lies and an order of dismissing the application for default. In the present case, the learned Court below was required to prepare a decree after pronouncement of the judgment on the basis of compromise between the parties. Next question that would arise is as to whether said mistake can be corrected. In this regard, Sections 151 to 153 of CPC, empowers the Court to pass such an order which can amend any defect or error in any proceedings in a suit which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question or issue raised by or depending upon such proceedings. Not only the CPC saves the inherent powers of the Court to make necessary orders to secure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of Court but also it empowers the Court to correct clerical or arithmetic mistake caused due to accidental slip or omission and to amend any defect or error in any proceedings in the suit. In the present case, non preparation of decree by the trial Court after pronouncing the judgment could very well be considered a defect in the proceedings in the suit which can be cured in terms of Section 153 CPC. In view of the above, I do not find any error in the order of learned Court below whereby decree which has been drawn on the application moved by the respondent has been ordered. Thus, the present revision petition is dismissed in limine though without any order as to costs. 28.1.2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge C.R.No. 554 of 2010 (O&M) 5