Civil Revision No.1273 of 2008 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.1273 of 2008 Decided on : July 20, 2009 Tarlok Singh and others ... Petitioners VERSUS Balbir Singh ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.G.S.Bal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Sukhdev Singh, Advocate for the respondent. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This petition is directed against the order dated 18.12.2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Dasuya, vide which an application moved by the plaintiff/petitioners (herein referred as `the petitioners') under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for correcting the decree, by amending the plaint, was dismissed. It was urged on behalf of the petitioners that he had sought specific performance of agreement to sell dated 24.3.1998 with regard to the land measuring 12 Kanal 17 Marlas. However, while mentioning the Khasra Number and measurement of the total land in the head-note and prayer clause of the plaint, it was wrongly typed as `Khasra No.662/1' and '12 Kanal 7 Marlas', whereas, it should have been `Khasra No.62/1' and land measuring `12 Kanal 17 Marlas', respectively. He has further pointed Civil Revision No.1273 of 2008 [ 2 ] out that though in para 1 of the plaint, the particulars were correctly mentioned as `Khasra No.62/1' and the land measuring `12 Kanal 17 Marlas'. To the contrary, counsel for the respondent – defendant (herein referred as `the respondent') has opposed the application stating that the judgment could be corrected and not the decree. It is also pleaded that there is no mistake in the judgment. Having heard the rival contentions and after scrutinizing the records of the case, it transpires that the agreement dated 24.3.1998, on the basis of which, the instant suit was filed, contains `Khasra No.62/1' and the total area is mentioned as `12 Kanal 17 Marlas'. The body of the plaint further depicts that though mistake has occurred in the head-note and prayer clause of the plaint, but in its body, the particulars have been rightly mentioned as in the agreement. In the circumstances, the correction as sought by the petitioners should have been allowed. This view is supported by the decision of this Court in case Gulzara Singh and others vs. Devinder Singh and others, 2004(3) The Punjab Law Reporter 331, wherein, it was held that Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with two kinds of situations; firstly, correction of clerical or arithmetical mistake in judgments, decrees or orders and secondly errors arising in those judgments and decrees from any accidental slip of omission. Such mistakes or slips may at any time be corrected by the Court either on its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. The Court further held that error in the plaint followed by the decree has occasioned from an accidental slip or omission, may be at the time of drafting the plaint on the basis of Civil Revision No.1273 of 2008 [ 3 ] incorrect jamabandi provided by the revenue authorities. It was, thus, held that the second 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. In the instant case, the mistake occurred while typing the plaint and the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer on that account. If the plaint is read as a whole, then no ambiguity remains, but since the decree-sheet was prepared on the basis of the head-note of the plaint only, thus, the decree-sheet also contains wrong particulars of the land. As such, this Court while exercising powers under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure certainly has a right to correct such a mistake. It is apparent that only clerical typographical error is there in the decree-sheet and not otherwise. So far as the contention of the counsel for the respondents that earlier such application moved by the petitioner had been withdrawn, is concerned, it is observed that withdrawal of any application, does not create a bar to move fresh application with better particulars. In view of the above discussion, it is held that there was no need to amend the plaint, however, the clerical mistake occurred therein could be ordered to be corrected, so as the decree could also be corrected. Thus, the petition is allowed and it is directed that the Trial Court shall carry out the corrections accordingly. July 20, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE