Clerical errors in judgments or decrees can be corrected under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, even if they originated from the pleadings, to ensure justice and accuracy in legal documentation.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Vashisth, J. (Oral)

Present Civil revision petition has been filed by the Decree holder-plaintiff, challenging the order dated 20.05.2023 (Annexure P-10), passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Samrala, whereby prayer made by the decree holder-plaintiff for seeking amendment in the heading, para No.1 and in the prayer clause of the plaint, has been dismissed.

2. Civil Suit No.CS/110/2014 filed by the plaintiff in regard to Rectangle No.52//22/5 was decreed by learned trial Court, whereas infact, the correct details of the land was required to be mentioned as Rectangle No.37//22/5. Civil suit filed by the petitioner for seeking partition by metes and bounds and permanent injunction in regard to the land measuring 10 Kanals, 15 Marlas comprised in Khewat No.482, 483, 581, 595, Khatauni No.589, 590, 698, 712, Rect No.37, Killa No.22/1/4/2, 23/1, 22/1/4/1, Rect. No.52, Killa No.22/5, 3/1/1, situated at Village Bondli, H.B. No.107, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana, was partly decreed by holding that the plaintiffs and defendants are entitled to separate possession by way of partition to the extent of their shares as reflected in Jamabandi for the year, 2010-2011 in the suit property comprised in Khewat No.482, 483, 581, 595, Khatauni No.589, 590, 698, 712, Rect No.37, Killa No.22/1/4/2, 23/1, 22/1/4/1, Rect. No.52, Killa No.22/5, 3/1/1, situated at Village Bondli, H.B. No.107, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana.

Accordingly, upon same number of land, learned trial Court prepared a decree dated 20.09.2019.

3. After passing of the preliminary decree of partition, petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for final partition by metes and bounds of the suit property on the basis of preliminary judgment and decree dated 20.09.2019 (Annexure P-5). At this stage, it was realized that in the Jamabandi for the year 2010-2011, based upon which the plaint and the prayer therein was made, is reflecting a wrong number of the land i.e. Killa No.22/5 of Rectangle No.52 (52//22/5), whereas, actually, it was required to be mentioned in the Jamabandi as Killa No.22/5 of Rectangle No.37 (37//22/5).

Immediately, thereafter, petitioner moved an application for correction of Rectangle number before the Revenue Department and after conducting of inquiry, it was found that there is a mistake and accordingly, required correction was made in the Revenue entries and Jamabandi. In the year 2015-16, petitioner again applied for a copy of Jamabandi, wherein, correct Killa number i.e. 37//22//5 was mentioned. After receiving the copy of the correct Jamabandi, petitioner moved an application under Section 152 read with section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint of Civil Suit No.110 of 2014 decided on 20.09.2019, titled as 'Sarabjit Singh v. Joginder Singh and others'. The prayer made in the said application is reproduced herebelow:

'It is therefore, prayed that the present application may kindly be accepted and plaint of civil suit no.110, CIS No. CS No.227/2014 date of institution 05/07/2014, date of decision 20/9/2019 titled as Sarabjit Singh v. Joginder Singh and others decided by the Hon'ble court of Ms.Riffi Bhatti, PCS, CJJD, Samrala may please be amended by amendment of Killa no.22/5 of Rect. No.37 instead of Killa no.22/5 of Rect. No.52 in the heading of the plaint and prayer clause and in para no.1 of the original plaint and thereafter new decree sheet and judgment may please be also prepared according to the amended plaint.'

4. Respondents/defendants No. 2 and 3 made their statement before the learned lower Court through their counsel that they have no objection if the application is disposed off as per law. Statement of counsel representing respondent No.2 and 3 is reproduced hereunder:

'Stated that I have no objection if the application filed by the applicant be disposed off as per law.

RO & AC

sd/-

11.07.2022'

However, without considering the prayer made by the petitioner-plaintiff, the said application was dismissed, hence