CR No. 2284 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 2284 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.11.2011 Suresh Kumar ...Petitioner Vs. M/s Aggarwal Trading Co. & Ors. .....Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.A.K.Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. A.N.Jindal, J. This petition assailed the order dated 11.11.2010 (Annexure P.6) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal dismissing the application of defendant/judgment debtor for correction of the judgment and decree passed in civil suit No.1454 of 1999 decided on 23.11.2005 by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal. Factual back-ground of the case is that the plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery against defendant No.1 alleging that defendant No.2 Smt.Sneh Lata is the sole proprietor of the firm M/s Sumit Trading Co.. Plaintiff had also impleaded defendant No.3 Suresh Kumar on account of the fact that he was attorney holder of defendant No.2. Therefore, no decree could be passed against defendant No.3. He further pleaded that he being the husband of defendant No.2 had no concern with the business run by defendants CR No. 2284 of 2011 2 No1 and 2. Therefore, no decree could be passed against him. He has further pleaded that decree was passed against him due to inadvertence, therefore, necessary correction in the decree is required. Application was opposed by the decree holders. The applicant has alleged that the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2005 was passed against defendant No.3 due to inadvertent mistake or error because it should have been passed against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 only. But on perusal of the judgment and decree passed in the aforesaid suit the defendant No.3 has no where been impleaded in the capacity of attorney but he was impleaded in his independent capacity. The judgment and decree dated 23.11.2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge indicates that the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.17,65,000/- along with costs and findings on issue No.1 are clear to the effect that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount of Rs.17,65,000/- from all the defendants. Said decree has attained finality. Therefore, the application preferred by the defendant No.3/petitioner was not maintainable. Had he been aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge then he would have preferred the appeal, if any, but no such appeal has been filed. Consequently, finding no merit in the revision petition, it is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) 11.11.2011 Judge rp