IMPORTANT POINT
Court cannot exercise power of amendment so as to review its judgment.

Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.—The defendant-petitioner prays for quashing order dated 03.08.2010 passed by Sub-Ordinate Judge-II, Patna in Title Suit no. 439 of 2006, whereby he allowed the petition dated 01.12.2007 (wrongly typed in order as 30.11.2007) filed under Section 152 and 153 of C.P.C. for making amendment in the plaint, compromise petition as well as in the compromise decree.

2. The trial court allowed the said petition on the ground that the error occurring in the plaint, compromise petition as well as compromise decree were clerical in nature.

3. The plaintiffs-respondents filed title suit no.439 of 2006 for specific performance of the contract for sale of Schedule-1 property in their favour and to further direct the defendant/petitioner to admit execution and registration of the requisite sale deed. The plaintiffs-respondents prayed in alternative for an award / decree of Rs.1,70,000/- + 23,000/- + 6300/- totaling Rs. 1,99,300/- along with 12 per cent interest per annum till its realization. The details of the property is described in Schedule-1, which is quoted herein below for easy reference:

SCHEDULE-1

Mauza Tauzi No. Khata No. S.P. No. Area

Duzara 525 14,155 172, 173 One Shop Consisting

P.S. Budha 14844 & 588 & 175 of 14 feet 9 inch x 11 feet

Colony (Part) (Part) having total area of 177

Thana No. 4 square feet over Which a pucca shop Katra, bearing no. G-2 is situated.

4. The Plaintiff’s case in brief is that in East Boring Canal Road, Patna, the defendant along with his brothers owned 11 Katha 9 dhoors 10 dhurki of land of survey plot no. 172, 173, 174 and 175 under khata no.14155 and 588, bearing Tauzi no.5225 / 14844. The defendant and his brothers entered into an agreement with a Builder “M/s Tinkues Krishna Deo Vihar Apartment” to construct a multistoried building on five kathas of the land only. The defendant was allotted shop nos. G-6, G-5, G-2 and B-2 with Car parking no.1 in the constructed apartment known as “Tinkues Kishundeo Vihar residential and commercial multistoried complex” towards his share. The petitioner-defendant agreed to sell the shop bearing no. G2 to petitioner / respondent for a consideration money of Rs. 1,50,450/-. On receipt of the money, the defendant executed a Baibeyana deed (deed of agreement for sale) in favour of plaintiff no.1 on 02.03.2005. It is the case of the plaintiffs that subsequently on insistence of defendant, he agreed to pay a higher price of Rs.1,70,000/- for the shop. A sale deed was also prepared for presenting it before Registrar, Registry office, Sadar, Patna. However, at the time of presentation of the deed, the defendant backed out. In spite of requests, the defendant on one pretext or the other avoided presentation of document for registration. The plaintiffs smelt something foul and were left with no alternative remedy but to move in suit for specific performance of contract. During the proceedings of the suit, the plaintiffs and the defendant entered into a compromise and filed a joint compromise petition dated 23.02.2007 in respect of the suit property, detailed in paragraph-1. The parties stated therein that the defendant has admitted that he had entered into an agreement for sale of his shop Katra measuring an area of 14 feet 9 inch x 11 feet totaling 177 square feet, bearing no.G-2 appertaining to khata no. 14,155 and 588 (part) S.P. No. 172, 173, 174 and 175 (part) having Tauzi no. 525 situated at Mauza Duzara, Budha Colony, Patna with plaintiff no.1 on 02.03.2005.

5. In paragraph (ii) of the compromise petition it has been averred that the defendant received the entire consideration money of Rs.1,70,000/- from the plaintiff no.1 and has agreed to execute sale deed in respect of the suit shop in favour of plaintiff no.2 (wife of petitioner no.1). But unfortunately the sale deed could not be presented before the Registrar on23.08.2006 for its execution. In paragraph 4, it was stated that defendant now ag