IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3101 of 2010. Date of Decision : 12.5.2010. Rajinder Kaur & others ......Petitioners Versus Hardev Singh ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioners NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) A judgment and decree was passed in favour of the petitioners in civil suit No.90 of March 5th, 1999 decided on February 13th, 2003 by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malerkota against the respondent. By order dated April 12th, 2008, certificate of sale of land under Order 21 Rule 94 CPC was granted by the Court to the petitioners. By clerical mistake in the judgment, decree and the Sale certificate while describing the details of the land, it was mentioned 2/6423 share instead of 40/6423 share which comes to 2 bighas as mentioned in the plaint. The petitioner approached the Revenue Authorities seeking sanction of mutation on the basis of sale certificate but the authorities refused to do the same because the share was wrongly mentioned in the sale certificate. The petitioner moved an application for correction of the same but vide impugned order dated February 11th, 2010 (Annexure P-3) Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malerkotla dismissed the same on the ground that this clerical mistake should have been brought to the notice of the Judge while granting sale certificate and not at this stage. 2. Indeed, it is a clerical mistake in the judgment, decree and the sale certificate which can be corrected at any stage. Otherwise too, writing judgment, drawing up of decree and granting sale certificate are the functions of the Court and its office, and it would be unreasonable to penalise a party for the default of the office and to deprive them of their rights which they had obtained after Civil Court judgment in their favour. Civil Revision No.3101 of 2010. (2) 3. In view of this, the revision petition is accepted. Order under challenge is set-aside. The trial Court is directed to make the correction in the sale certificate to the effect that it was granted to the petitioners qua the share 40/6423 in the land mentioned therein. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 12.5.2010. SN