Civil Revision No. 4290 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4290 of 2011 Date of Decision: 19.7.2011 *** Sher Deen & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Sukru & Ors. .. Respondents with Civil Revision No. 4301 of 2011 *** Sher Deen & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Matloob .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. B.R. Vohra, Advocate for the petitioners. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioners-plaintiffs are aggrieved with order dated 11.6.2011 vide which their application under Sections 151 and 152 CPC for amendment in the decree, has been dismissed. Since similar issue is being raised in both the petitions, the same are disposed of by this common order passed in CR No. 4290 of 2011. Heard. It is evident from records that initially different civil suits for possession of the land comprised in khasra No.59 fully mentioned in the head notes, were filed. The same were decreed in favour of the petitioners and the respondents were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the land under their possession after removing super-structure therefrom. Mesne profits were also granted to the plaintiffs @ Rs.100/- per month. The respondents-defendants filed separate appeals against the judgments and decrees dated 12.8.2006 passed by the learned trial Court. During the pendency of the appeals, the Court appointed one local commissioner to report about the constructed as well as vacant area and consequent upon the receipt of the report, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and Civil Revision No. 4290 of 2011 2 the appellants-defendants were directed to pay Rs.3000/- per marla to the plaintiffs-petitioners herein in lieu of the area under their possession and on payment thereof they were to be given the rights of the same. The appeals were accordingly disposed of vide order dated 11.2.2008 in terms of the compromise. After that the petitioners-plaintiffs filed impugned application and sought rectification in the decree passed by the appellate Court with the averments that no order in respect of vacant land, shown by the local commissioner in yellow colour, in his report, has been passed. However, their plea does not find favour with the Court below, which dismissed their application. Section 152 CPC provides for amendment of judgments, decrees or orders. As per the scheme of the Act any 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. However, in the present case the local commissioner was appointed to put an end the protracted litigation between the parties. He submitted the report with the proposal, which was accepted by the parties in toto and they along with their counsel made statements before the Court, but the plaintiffs never reserved their right in respect of the vacant land, consequently, the decree was passed by the learned trial Court below, taking into account the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties. In this view of the matter, the plaintiffs, now with the filing of the impugned application, cannot said that the dispute is still not resolved amongst the parties. Otherwise, if any error occurs on the part of party, the resort cannot be had to the provisions of Section 152 CPC, as rightly observed by the learned Court below in the impugned order, which carries no illegality or ambiguity therein. Dismissed. If so advised, the petitioners may avail any other remedy permissible under law. A copy of this order be placed in the connected petition. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 19, 2011 Jiten