Civil Revision No. 5524 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5524 of 2009 Date of decision : May 14, 2010 Ram Kishan and another ....Petitioners versus Mool Chand and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Rohit Ahuja, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. PS Chauhan, Advocate, for the respondents L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Defendants no. 2 and 3 for themselves and also as legal representatives of defendant no. 1 since deceased have filed instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 10.4.2009 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, thereby dismissing application moved by defendants under sections 151, 152, 153 & 153-A of Code of Civil Procedure (in short CPC) for correction/rectification of judgment and decree dated 30.11.1996, Annexure P/1. Respondents herein filed suit against defendants i.e. petitioners and their father Harji since deceased for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs over suit land of Civil Revision No. 5524 of 2009 -2- residential Gait measuring 54 ft x 48 ft situated in village Chandwali as described in para no. 1 of the plaint by boundaries and as shown by letters ABCD in site plan, Ex. P2 annexed with the plaint. Suit was instituted on 14.3.1995. Defendants, inter alia, pleaded that the matter was settled between the plaintiffs and defendant no. 2 in a Panchayat held on 12.3.1995 and they affixed their signatures/thumb impressions on the said decision of Panchayat according to which dimensions of the plaintiffs' plot are 79' x 38'-6”. Learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.1996, Annexure P/1, taking into consideration the aforesaid settlement dated 12.3.1995 arrived at by the parties in the Panchayat, decreed the plaintiffs' suit holding them to be owners of land measuring 79' x 38'. Accordingly permanent injunction was also granted restraining defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs over the land measuring 79' x 38' as shown in Ex. DW2/A and boundaries as stated in Ex. D1/P1. In the judgment, in fact document Ex. D1 has been referred to but in the decree, document Ex. P1 has been referred to. Defendants in their application (Annexure P2) for correction of the aforesaid judgment and decree alleged that in fact there is clerical error in mentioning documents Ex. DW2/A and Ex. D1/P1 in operative part of the judgment and decree sheet of the trial court because in fact copy of compromise is Ex. D1 and original compromise is Ex. DW3/A. The defendants accordingly sought correction that in the operative part of the judgment and decree sheet, documents Ex. DW3/A and Ex. D1 should be Civil Revision No. 5524 of 2009 -3- referred instead of Ex. DW2/A and Ex. D1/P1. The plaintiffs resisted the aforesaid application. Learned trial court vide impugned order dated 10.4.2009, Annexure P/3 dismissed the application moved by the defendants. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have preferred the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file including the file of the trial court. Before proceeding further, it may be added that defendants had preferred first appeal as well as second appeal but both the said appeals were dismissed. Judgment passed by this Court in second appeal is reported as 2002(1) SLJ 722, titled Harji versus Mool Chand. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that discussion in the judgment reveals that the suit has been decreed on the basis of compromise dated 12.3.1995. In the operative part of the judgment, copy of compromise has been correctly written as Ex. D1 but in the decree sheet it has been wrongly mentioned as Ex. P1. Similarly in judgment as well as decree sheet, compromise has been wrongly mentioned as Ex. DW2/A instead of Ex. DW3/A. These contentions find support from the original record of the trial court and even learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs could not controvert the same. In addition thereto, Ex. P1 is copy of mortgage deed wherein dimensions of the property mentioned are 16 yards (48 ft) and 18 yards (54 ft.) and it was regarding the same dimensions that the suit was filed, but the trial court decreed the suit regarding land measuring 79 ft x 38 ft and not regarding land measuring 54 ft x 48 ft. mentioned in Ex. P1. Consequently, document Ex. P1 which is Civil Revision No. 5524 of 2009 -4- copy of mortgage deed could not be basis of decree for land measuring 79 ft. x 38 ft. The clerical error is thus apparent regarding document Ex. P1 mentioned in the decree of the trial court. Similarly, Ex. DW2/A is site plan furnished by defendants wherein dimensions of the plot depicted therein are mentioned to be east 82 ft., west 85'-9”, north 64'-6” and south 71 ft. Consequently, suit regarding land measuring 79 ft. x 38 ft. could not be decreed on the basis of very different dimensions mentioned in plan Ex. DW2/A. On the other hand. in compromise Ex. DW3/A as well as it its copy Ex. D1, the dimensions mentioned are 79' x 38'-6” and the trial court in the judgment noticed the said dimensions, but while decreeing the suit, correctly mentioned the length as 79 ft. but incorrectly mentioned the width as 38' instead of 38'-6”. Be that as it may, there is apparent clerical error in mentioning documents Ex. DW2/A and Ex. P1 instead of documents Ex. DW3/A and Ex. D1. For the reasons recorded herein above, the revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 10.4.2009, Annexure P/3 passed by the trial court is set aside and application Annexure P/2 moved by the defendants in the trial court is allowed and judgment and decree dated 30.11.1996 Annexure P/1 passed by the trial court are ordered to be corrected to the extent that the operative part of the judgment and decree sheet shall be deemed to have referred to document Ex. DW3/A instead of Ex. DW2/A in the judgment and decree sheet and document Ex. D1 instead of Ex. P1 in the decree sheet only. ( L.N. Mittal ) May 14, 2010 Judge 'dalbir' Civil Revision No. 5524 of 2009 -5-