C.R. No. 2952 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2952 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 5.5.2010 Municipal Committee, Pehowa .......... Petitioner Versus Kanwar Bhan Mor ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.4.2010, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Kurukshetra, on an application moved by the petitioner under Section 152 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for correction of typographical error. The petitioner moved an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, claiming that in the judgment passed by the Court on 24.12.2008, the word 'Vakalatnamas' was inadvertently not mentioned, therefore, it was necessary to correct the typographical error, to incorporate the word 'Vakalatnamas'. The application was contested, wherein a specific plea was taken, that the petitioner has failed to comply with the judgment and decree and had not made any payment. It was also the stand of the respondent that the application was mala fide, to cover up its lapse in not complying with C.R. No. 2952 of 2010 -2- the order, therefore, contempt proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. The learned Addl. District Judge, has recorded a finding, that word 'Vakalatnamas' was not mentioned in the judgment dated 24.12.2008. It was not a typographical error or miss in the order. The learned Court found, that copies of the Vakalatnama were irrelevant as the petitioner was directed to be paid for the cases which were conducted by him. The learned counsel contends, that no resolution was passed in favour of the respondent, nor he was given any Vakalatnama to appear in the Court, therefore, the word 'Vakalatnama' was very material. It was, therefore, necessary to allow the application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misconceived. Once it is not disputed that the respondent was appointed as Legal Assistant by the Municipal Committee, Pehow to appear in the cases, then there is hardly any reason to claim, that specific resolution was again required by the respondent, to appear in the cases. Furthermore, it was not an application for review, but an application moved under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming, that it was a typographical error. The learned Addl. District Judge, recorded a positive finding, that no such word was mentioned, therefore, it was not a case of typographical error, which could be corrected under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of the positive finding recorded by the C.R. No. 2952 of 2010 -3- learned Addl. District Judge, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be noticed to be rejected. No merit. Dismissed. 5.5.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE