A mistake in the description of the property in dispute in a plaint and decree can be corrected under S.152, Civil Procedure Code, if the mistake is an accidental slip or omission and if the correction does not affect the identity of the property in dispute.

1. Teja Singh, Harbhagat Singh, Firu, Saudagar Singh and Karnail Singh filed a suit for possession of the land measuring 12 kanals comprising of kila Nos. 17 and 20, rectangle No. 15, khewat No. 95 and khatauni No. 251 as per entries in the jamabandi 1966-67, situate in village Galowal, Tehsil Dasuya, in a representative form, alleging that the land belonged to them and the other owners of the village, a list or which was attached with the plaint. The suit was decreed by Sub-Judge 1st Class. Dasuya, vide judgement dated 31-5-1973.

2. In the execution proceedings filed by the decree-holders, warrant for possession of the land was issued, but it could not be executed as khasra number was not correctly recorded in the decree-sheet. The decree-holders submitted an application in the Executing Court for the correction of the khasra number and for the issue of a fresh warrant but it was found that khasra No. 20 was correctly given in the decree-sheet in accordance with the plaint. The decree-holders then prayed that in fact the khasra number in the revenue record was 24 and it was wrongly recorded as 20, therefore, correction be made in the plaint, judgement and the decree-sheet under S.152, Civil P.C.

3. The prayer made by the decree-holders was contested by the judgement-debtor and his counsel urged that under S.152, Civil Procedure Code, the Court is only empowered to make corrections of clerical mistakes in the judgement and decree-sheet and that the mistakes occurring in the pleadings cannot be corrected.

4. The Executing Court allowed the application of the decree-holders and directed that the correction of the khasra number be made in the plaint, the judgement and the decree. It is against this order that Mohinder Singh and others, the judgement-debtors, have filed this civil revision.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that under S.152, Civil Procedure Code, clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgements, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission only can be corrected and the corrections Bought to be made in the instant case are in the plaint, judgement and decree which is not permissible under law. He relied upon Hamiduddin Ahmad V/s. Moyesuddin Mondal, AIR 1946 Cal 336 and Tarsem Singh Major V/s. Sm. Jagindro, AIR 1959 Punj 88. In case Tarsem Singh Major V/s. Sm. Jagindro (supra), it was observed that if the decree is not drawn up in harmony with the judgement, the Court has no alternative but to rectify the mistake which has been committed. It was further observed therein that the object of allowing amendment under S.152, Civil Procedure Code, is to provide a remedy for casual omission or negligence of ministerial officers of the Court in preparing decrees of Courts even though they bear the signatures of the Presiding Officers concerned. It was further observed therein that as the power to amend is exercised for the promotion of justice, it should be exercised liberally so as to make the decree conform to the judgement on which it is founded.

6. Thus it is apparent that in case Tarsem Singh Major V/s. Sm. Jagindero (supra), the point as to whether correction can be made in the pleadings or not was not considered. In Hamiduddin Ahmad V/s. Moyesuddin Mondal (supra), the property in dispute was described wrongly in the schedule attached with the plaint. The plaintiff, in the said case, had claimed the portion being on the East but the decree was regarding the Western portion and it was held that without amending the plaint and thereby reopening the defence, he could not get any relief at all and the prayer was rejected.

7. In the instant case the claim for possession of the land was based on the basis of the jamabandi for the year 1966-67 the copy of which was attached with the plaint. In the jamabandi, the khasra numbers are 17 and 24 but instead of khasra No. 24, the scribe of the plaint wrongly mentioned it as khasra No. 20, while the other desc