C.R. No.7734 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.7734 of 2009 Date of Decision: 04.08.2010 Gurmit Kaur .……Petitioner Versus Bali Ram and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. M. S. Dhami, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K. S. Cheema, Advocate for respondent No.1. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Gurmit Kaur-judgment debtor No.1 has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 06.08.2009 Annexure P-4 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dasuya, thereby allowing application Annexure P-2 moved by decree-holder-respondent No.1-Bali Ram under Sections 151, 152 and 153 and Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, C.P.C) read with Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act for correction of boundaries of the disputed house regarding which suit filed by respondent No.1 against petitioner and proforma-respondent Nos.2 to 9 stands decreed for possession of the said house by specific performance of the agreement, vide judgment dated 02.01.2002 Annexure P-1. Respondent No.1 alleged in the application that in the agreement, boundaries of the disputed house are mentioned as under:- North: Street South: Property of Dharam Singh C.R. No.7734 of 2009 -2- East: Street West: Property of Baldev Singh, but the correct boundaries are as under:- North: House Property of Baldev Singh South: Street East: Street West: H/Property of Dharam Singh, The said error occurred in the agreement and consequently in the plaint and site plan. Respondent No.1, accordingly, sought correction of boundaries of the suit house. Judgment debtors by filing reply Annexure P-3 resisted the aforesaid application and pleaded that the plaintiff should have verified the boundaries of the suit property before filing the suit and the proposed amendment cannot be allowed at this stage. Learned Executing Court vide impugned order Annexure P-4 has allowed the aforesaid application moved by respondent No.1 and has ordered correction of boundaries of the suit property as prayed for. Feeling aggrieved, judgment debtor No.1 has filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that amendment of boundaries in agreement cannot be allowed after passing of judgment and decree. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Century Textiles Industries Ltd. versus Deepak Jain and another, 2009(2) RCR (Civil) 614. It was held therein that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree, but it is for the executing Court to determine C.R. No.7734 of 2009 -3- the question of identity of the judgment debtor if it is disputed. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that counsel for judgment debtors (including the present petitioner) made statement on 30.08.2005 in the executing Court that the aforesaid application moved by the decree-holder may be allowed subject to heavy costs and consequently, the application has been rightly allowed. On the preceding date of hearing when this argument was raised by counsel for respondent No.1, counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment to seek instructions to respond to the said contention. Learned counsel for the petitioner today contended that the petitioner had not given any instructions to the counsel to make any such statement in the Executing Court. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Insofar as judgment in the case of M/s Century Textiles Industries Ltd. (supra) is concerned, the same was on completely different aspect. It was observed therein that the dispute regarding identity of the judgment debtor could validly be adjudicated by the Executing Court and the same was not required to be adjudicated by resorting to Section 152 CPC because under Section 152 CPC, clerical and arithmetic errors can be corrected. Contention of counsel for the petitioner that statement dated 30.08.2005 by counsel for judgment debtors made in the Executing Court was without instructions of the judgment debtors cannot be accepted. Counsel had the instructions to appear on behalf of the judgment debtors and to act and plead on their behalf. Consequently, the statement made by counsel cannot be ignored merely on the oral assertion that the statement was made without C.R. No.7734 of 2009 -4- instructions of judgment debtors. In view of said statement, the application Annexure P-2 moved by respondent No.1 had to be allowed, although on payment of costs. Even on merits, respondent No.1 made out a good case for acceptance of application Annexure P-2. Perusal of the boundaries mentioned in the plaint and the boundaries as now sought to be corrected reveals that boundaries remained the same, although the direction has changed by angle of 90 degree. In other words, northern boundary mentioned in the plaint becomes eastern boundary, southern boundary mentioned in the plaint becomes western boundary, eastern boundary becomes southern boundary and western boundary becomes northern boundary. It is thus manifest that it was only inadvertent error in the agreement as well as in the plaint in mentioning the boundaries. Consequently, when the suit has been decreed, respondent No.1 cannot be deprived of the frauds of the decree merely on account of aforesaid inadvertent error in the boundaries. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no illegality in the impugned order of the Executing Court except that respondent No.1 has to be burdened with some costs. The revision petition is, accordingly disposed of by upholding the impugned order of the Executing Court with modification that respondent No.1 shall pay Rs.15,000/- as costs precedent to the judgment debtors. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 04.08.2010 A. Kaundal