IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7097 of 2010 Date of decision: February 16, 2011 Alla Dee .. Petitioner Vs. Nazar and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.K. Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral) This petition assails the order dated 25.8.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, dismissing the application for correction of the judgment and decree dated 13.9.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jagadhri. Precisely, the facts necessary for the disposal of the petition are that the respondent-judgment debtors are real brothers. The suit for permanent injunction filed by the petitioner- plaintiff was decreed by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri on 13.9.2002 against which the appeal was preferred by the respondents which was dismissed on 9.2.2005. The trial court while deciding the case had observed that the petitioner Alla Dee was the owner in possession of 3 marla land out of the suit property and she was declared owner of the same. However, on request being made by her to the Revenue Patwari to change her name in the column of ownership on the ground that the judgment and decree does not contain the correct names, she had to file the application for correction of the judgment and decree, therefore, she has sought correction in the judgment dated 13.9.2002 in the column of respondents as under :- 1. Nazar @ Niaz Mohd. Son of Ismail. 2. Jamma @ Jamu Deen son of Ismail. The respondents in this case have failed to rebut the averments made by the petitioner. They could not dispute if the petitioner had filed the suit against them and the same was decreed. They could not dispute if the Civil Revision No. 7097 of 2010 -2- *** appeal preferred by her was dismissed. They have also failed to dispute if the petitioner was held owner of 3 marla land out of Khasra NO.50. Since the names of the father of the defendants are correct and they belong to the same village, their identity is not disputed, therefore, in order to correct the revenue record and in the interest of implementing the judgment and decree in the right perspective, the necessary correction if made would not in any way prejudice the rights of the respondents. The Apex Court in case Jayalakshmi Coeltho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho, 2001 (2) RCR (Civil) 515 : (2001) 4 SCC 181 that the principle on which the provisions of Section 152 are based is that mistake by court ought not to cause a party to suffer and whatever be the intention of the court while passing a decree should be clearly reflected therein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that powers under Section 152 are inherent powers and would be available to all courts and authorities regardless whether Section 152 is applicable to any particular proceedings. The crux of the aforesaid judgment is that the party should not suffer on account of the fault on the part of the court or party itself if mistake has occurred as a result of which the decree is being mis-interpreted and has become un-executable otherwise. Here in the present case also, the decree appears to have become un-executable only for the reason that the name of the parties in the revenue record is somewhat different than the name given in the pleadings from where the names were transported in the judgment. As such, this mistake certainly is covered by Section 152 of CPC and could be corrected. In the circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the view taken by the trial court is not correct and needs to be reversed. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the application filed by the petitioner for correction in the judgment and decree dated 13.9.2002 is allowed. February 16, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge