C.R.No.6550 of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6550 of 2010 Date of decision: 28.7.2011 Gourav and others ….Petitioners Vs. Gopal Babbar and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Munish K Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Jaswant Singh, J Plaintiff-petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the impugned order dated 5.10.2009 and 16.7.2010 passed by learned trial Court whereby their applications for preparation of decree sheet has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-petitioners filed Civil Suit No.237-A dated 20.8.2008 for declaration. During the pendency of the suit, matter was compromised and the same was disposed of vide order dated 14.9.2009 but the decree sheet was not prepared. Therefore, an application was made for correction in the order and preparation of decree sheet but the same was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 5.10.2009 and thereafter another application was made, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 16.7.2010, hence the present petition. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial C.R.No.6550 of 2010 #2# Court has grossly erred while dismissing the application of the petitioners and not preparing the decree sheet. Further argues that in view of the judgment of this Court reported as Dharampal & Ors v. Ram Jawari & Ors, 2010(3) Civil Court Cases 377 (P&H), it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court to draw a decree in accordance with the judgment dated 14.9.2009. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has vehemently opposed the contention of the petitioners that the impugned order is well reasoned and does not require any interference. He has also argued that the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the present case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, this court does not find any merit in the present petition and the same deserves dismissal. Plaintiffs-petitioners filed a suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 are owners in possession in equal shares of double storey house No.255 whereas plaintiff No.3 is the owner in possession of property No.94 as described in the head note of the plaint; further challenge was laid to the validity of will dated 29.1.2002 being illegal, null and void obtained by defendant No.1 with further prayer for possession of area shown in site plan with consequential relief of permanent injunction. During the pendency of the civil suit, compromise was effected between the parties on 12.9.2008 and consequently the suit was disposed of in terms of compromise (Ex.C.1) vide order dated 14.9.2009 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jind, which reads as under: “Today the case was fixed for consideration. The matter was already compromised between the parties. However, there was C.R.No.6550 of 2010 #3# no certificate that of counsel to the effect that the compromise is in the interest of minor. An application, affidavit of father of minor, who is one of the plaintiff also, filed. Underneath, the application, certificate of counsel for the plaintiff is there, who has stated that the compromise is in utmost interest of minor. Statement of the parties were already recorded on 12.9.2008. The case stands disposed of in terms of the compromise Ex.C1 directing the parties to remain bound by the compromise Ex.C1. File be consigned to record after due compliance.” Thereafter, an application dated 5.10.2009 (P.4) was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner No.1 with a prayer that the decree sheet may be prepared in terms of compromise (Ex.C.1) and the same may be made as part of decree sheet but the same was dismissed vide order dated 5.10.2009 by the same very Presiding Officer and the order reads as under: “Present application has been filed by the applicants/plaintiffs for preparation of the decree sheet. Heard. The perusal of the order dated 14.9.2009 passed by this Court, the photo copy of which has been annexed with this application shows that the matter was compromised and written compromise Ex.C.1 was placed on case file by the parties. The parties were directed to remain bound by compromise Ex.C.1 and there was no order for preparation of the final decree. Hence, the application is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. Paper are ordered to be consigned to the record room and to be tagged with the main file.” Thereafter, another application dated 14.10.2009 (P.5) was filed by plaintiff-petitioner No.1 with the identical prayer as made in the earlier application dated 5.10.2009 but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 16.7.2010 (P.1) on the ground that the court has already refused to prepare a decree sheet on the basis of compromise (Ex.C.1) and as such C.R.No.6550 of 2010 #4# the same is not a clerical or arithmetical mistake. It was the case of the plaintiffs-petitioners before the learned court below that due to some clerical mistake or accidental slip, the error had occurred in the order dated 14.9.2009 and the same may be corrected at any time and regarding this, para No.6 of the application is reproduced hereunder: “That due to some clerical mistake or accidental slip or omission the aforesaid error has arisen in the order dated 14.9.2009. This Hon'ble Court may at any time amend or correct the aforesaid omission/error for the purpose of determining the real question/issue raised by the plaintiffs and mutually settled by the parties to the suit by way of written compromise Ex.C.1.” A perusal of both the impugned orders clearly reveal that there was neither any clerical mistake nor any accidental slip rather it was the conscious decision of the Court that there was no order for preparation of the decree sheet and thus the plea of the plaintiff-petitioners there was an error in the order due to clerical or accidental is not acceptable and the same needs to be rejected. So far as the contention that in view of the judgment of Dharampal's case (supra), learned trial Court was bound to prepare a decree sheet is not acceptable in view of the distinguishable facts of the present case. As in the present case, there was no judgment but only the suit was disposed of by way of an order on the basis of a compromise but on the other hand, in Dharampal's case (supra), there was a detailed judgment while dismissing the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff and accepted the counter claim filed by the defendant-petitioner by observing as under: “40. Keeping in view the above discussion and reasons set out, issue No.3 is partly decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs with the effect that defendants are entitled to get a decree for possession of the suit land and issue No.4 is C.R.No.6550 of 2010 #5# also decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs as defendants had valued the counter claim properly for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction by affixing proper Court fee at the time of filing of written statement on 3.5.1989.” Therefore, no benefit can be extended to the plaintiffs- petitioners on the basis of Dharampal's case (supra) as in the present case, there is no judgment. Learned trial Court had not thought it an appropriate case to frame a decree and as such it was not obligatory on the part of it to frame the decree. If the contention of the petitioners is to be accepted, then in each and every case, the learned trial Court is bound to frame a decree. This is not the intention of the provision of Order 20 of the CPC. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, no illegality or perversity can be found with impugned order dated 5.10.2009 and 16.7.2010 passed by learned trial Court warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. July 28th, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE