C. R. No. 597 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 597 of 2010 Date of Decision : January 29, 2010 Mohinder Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Janak Dulari and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Mohinder Singh – judgment debtor no.1 has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 28.03.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Executing Court i.e. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, thereby dismissing objections filed by the petitioner in execution petition instituted by decree- holder – respondent no.1 Janak Dulari for execution of judgment and decree dated 09.05.2006 (Annexure P-2) passed against petitioner and his son proforma respondent no.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that description of the suit property is vague and its identity cannot be established and therefore, the decree is inexecutable. The contention cannot C. R. No. 597 of 2010 2 be accepted because no such objection was even raised by the petitioner in the written statement filed in the suit. No dispute regarding identity or description of the suit property was raised in the suit and therefore, no such objection can be raised at this stage. Even otherwise, the suit property has been described in the plaint and has been mentioned in the judgment and decree sheet as well. In fact, the petitioner claimed that husband of respondent no.1 had sold the suit property to the petitioner. However, it was found that husband of respondent no.1 was not owner of the suit property. It was also found that the property described in the said sale deed was vague and unidentifiable. However, it does not mean that suit property claimed by respondent no.1 in the suit filed by her is also not identifiable. Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the Executing Court in the impugned order has observed that warrant of possession be issued as per decree dated 22.07.2006. It is pointed out that decree dated 22.07.2006 was passed in suit instituted by the petitioner herein. However, this is only a clerical error and in fact, decree holder – respondent no.1 filed execution petition for execution of decree dated 09.05.2006 (Annexure P-2) passed in the suit instituted by respondent no.1. This fact is also clear from certified copy of the impugned order. On account of this clerical error, the impugned order cannot be set aside. However, the Executing Court is directed to take appropriate remedial steps to correct the aforesaid clerical error. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. January 29, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE