The High Court has the jurisdiction to correct typographical or clerical mistakes in the decree under Sections 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and errors in the decree arising from an accidental slip or omission can be corrected by the court.

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. The plaintiff-respondents have moved the present application under Sections 152 and 153 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for correcting typographical error or accidental slip in the decree passed by the trial Court on 18.9.1990 affirmed by the learned District Judge on 5.2.1993 and by this Court in second appeal on 7.10.1993.

2. It has been alleged that the applicant-plaintiffs have filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 12.9.1987 and the sale deed dated 22.9.1987 executed by defendant Surinder Singh. The suit was filed with regard to the land measuring 18 Kanals 18 marlas being 488/128th share of defendant No. 1 in the total land measuring 51 Kanals 8 marlas. The disputed khasra number was described in the suit as 21/1 (9-9) as per jamabandi for the year 1984-85. In agreement to sell dated 12.9.1987 the details of khasra number was not mentioned though khata No. 183/288 was mentioned with the total area of the land measuring 51 kanals 8 marlas.

3. It has further been pointed out that as per Jamabandi for the year 1984-85 produced before the trial court there is no khasra No. 21/1 (9-9) or Khata No. 182/261. However, the correct Khasra No. is 22/1 (9-9). While executing sale deed on 22.9.1987, the petitioner has given the details of khasra No. 21/1 (9-9) was mentioned instead of correct khasra No. 22/1 (9-9) but in the last para of sale deed dated 22.9.1987 Ex.P2 the correct khasra number have been mentioned i.e. Rect. No. 30 khasra No. 22/1 (9-9). It is pointed out that while drafting plaint, khasra number as mentioned by the Petition Writer in the opening part of the sale deed dated 22.9.1987 were written although in the sale deed itself correct khasra No. 22/1 (9-9) was mentioned in the later part of the document.

4. Said mistake came to the notice of the plaintiffs during the execution. The plaintiffs, therefore, moved an application under Sections 152, 153 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the trial court. The learned trial court vide order dated 7.12.1995 passed an order for correcting typographical mistake. Defendants have filed Civil Revision No. 431 of 1998 against the said order. One of the objections in the said revision petition is that the learned trail court i.e. the court of Additional Senior Sub-Judge had no jurisdiction to order the corrections after the judgment of the trial court has merged in the judgment of the learned District Judge.

5. The plaintiffs moved the present application before this Court on the ground that the judgment of the trial court stood merged with the order passed by this court on 7.10.1993 when this court dismissed the Regular Second appeal in limine after issuing notice to the plaintiffs.

6. The defendants opposed such an application but admitted that the sale deed was executed on a non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs. 6,000/- after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs. 18,000/- for the land measuring 18 kanals 16 marlas. Said sale deed was executed on 22.9.1987. The plaintiffs sought specific performance in respect of Khasra No. 30//22/l (9-9) and Khasra No. 22/1 (9-9). It has been pointed out that the appellants and the subsequent vendees who have purchased Khasra No. 30//22/l measuring 4 kanals Min from Sohan Singh son of Dhanna Singh co-sharers vide sale deed dated 9.12.1996 falling to the share of Sohan Singh in partition. Remaining portion of Khasra No. 30//22/1 measuring 3 kanals was purchased from Sohan Singh by the appellants Gulzara Singh and Piara Singh vide sale deed dated 9.12.1996 or 30.5.1988 were not the subject matter of the suit, therefore, the plaintiffs cannot now turn around and claim Khasra No. 30//22/1 by seeking amendment of judgment and decree.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs contended that this court has jurisdiction to correct the typographical mistake or accidental slips in the pleadings which led to passing of the decree in exerci