Sec. 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows for the correction of judgments and decrees to ensure justice between the parties, and the power is not limited to clerical or arithmetical mistakes.

1. This civil revision has been directed by the petitioner against order dated 19-2-1985 passed by Sub Judge 1st Class, Jhajjar thereby declining the application for correction of judgment and decree dated 2-12-1983 passed in Civil Suit No. 100 of 1980 titled Sampuran Singh V/s. Nandu etc.

2. Sampuran Singh (since deceased) predecessor of the present petitioners filed Civil Suit No. 100 of 1980 against Nandu etc. in the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Jhajjar for declaration that he was owner of land measuring 4 Kanals 6 Marlas being 1/10th part of total land measuring 43 Kanals and 1/2 Marla being 1/2 of 86 Kanals 1 Marla fully mentioned in para 3 of the plaint and that Civil Decree No. 756 dated 9-1-1979 passed in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 4 was bogus, fictitious, illegal, null and void, ineffective and against the rights of the plaintiff and thus was liable to be set aside. Alternatively, it was also prayed that in case defendant Nos. 2 to 4 were found in possession of the suit land, then a decree for possession be also passed in favour of the plaintiff. The aforementioned suit was contested by the defendants who are respondents in the present civil revision.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed following issues for adjudication on 25-1-1982 :-

(1) Whether the decree in suit No. 756 decided on 9-1-79 titled Mahabir V/s. Nandu decided by Sub Judge 1st Class, Jhajjar is against law and facts and is not binding on the rights of the plaintiff ? OPP (2) In case the plaintiff is not found in possession of the suit land whether he is entitled for the possession of the same ? OPP (3) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of the parties ? OPD (4) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD (5) Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction ? OPD (6) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD (7) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct ? OPD (8) Relief.

4 After a detailed discussion in paras 10 and 11 of the judgment, the learned trial Court, while deciding Issue No. 1 concluded as under :-

"Since all the witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff have been consistent on the point that both the parties are Jats by Caste and are governed by Zamindara custom of Rohtak District, Nandu could not pass on his entire ancestral land to defendant Nos. 2 to 4 alone by suffering a decree in their favour to the exclusion of plaintiff and other children. Therefore, decree and order dated 9-1-79 passed in Civil Suit No. 756 titled Mahabir V/s. Nandu is declared to be against law and facts and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants."

5 The learned trial Court while deciding the Issue relating to the Relief, decreed the suit filed by Sampuran Singh deceased with the following conclusion :-

"Issue No. 8 : In view of my findings on various issues, the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and is decreed in his favour to the effect that he is owner of land measuring 4K-6M being 1/10th share of the land owned by Nandu and also to possession of the same. Defendants are also burdened with costs of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly."

6 Sampuran Singh (since deceased) thereafter moved an application under Sec. 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the decree sheet dated 2-12-1983 to the limited extent that in addition to declaring him owner-in-possession of land measuring 4 Kanals 6 Marlas being 1/10th share of land owned by Nandu (since deceased), the decree dated 9-1-1979 passed in Civil Suit No. 756 titled Mahabir V/s. Nandu, be also declared against law and facts and not binding upon his rights as already held by the learned Civil Court while deciding Issue No. 1. The learned trial Court, however, vide its impugned order dated 19-2-1985, dismissed the aforement