ORDER

(Heard through video conference)

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are the defendants in the suit, aggrieved by the order dated 18.09.2019 in I.A. No.1 of 2019 in O.S. No.75 of 2007 passed by the Trial Court under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity “CPC”), whereby, the Trial Court has amended the decree.

2. The respondent, who is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S. No.75 of

2007, has sought for a specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 20.11.2006 against the petitioners/defendants. He had sought for the following reliefs in the suit O.S. No.75 of 2007:

a) to grant a decree in favour of the Plaintiff for Specific Performance of Executed Sale Deed dated 20.11.2006 by directing the defendants to register the executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and on their failure, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to register the Deed in favour of the Plaintiff and deliver the possession of the suit properties.

b) award the cost of the suit.

c) pass such further or other relief as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

3. The Trial Court has passed an ex parte decree in favour of the respondent/plaintiff on 21.01.2008. The operative portion of the judgment, dated 21.01.2008 reads as follows :

“gpujpthjpahy; 20/11/2006 md;W jhth brhj;jpw;F vHjpf;bfhLj;j fpuag;gj;jpuj;ij thjpapd; bgaUf;F gjpt[ bra;J jhth brhj;jpd; Rthjpdj;ij thjpapd; trk; xg;gilf;f ntz;Lbkd;W Vww; ij Mw;Wjy; ghpjhuk; nfhhpa[k;. bryt[j;bjhif nfhhpa[k; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;lJ ,j;jhth.

thjp jug;gpy; th/rh/1 tprhhpf;fg;gl;L th/rh/M/1 kw;Wk; 2 FwpaPL bra;ag;gl;lJ/ tHf;F epUgpf;fg;gl;lJ/ tHf;F bryt[j;bjhifa[lk;

nfhhpago jhP ;g;ghiz bra;ag;gl;lJ/”

4. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff noticed the following omission in the decree :

“In case of failure of the petitioners/defendants to execute and register the sale deed, the Court will have to execute the same in favour of the respondent/plaintiff”.

Hence, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Section 152 CPC on the ground that the decree has omitted by accidental slip to include the following sentence “on their failure, the Court shall execute and register the sale deed in favour of the respondent / plaintiff”.

5. The Trial Court, by its order dated 18.09.2019, which is under challenge in this revision in I.A. No.1 of 2019, has allowed the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Section 152 CPC.

6. The petitioners/defendants have raised the following grounds in this revision for challenging the impugned order dated 18.09.2019 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S. No.75 of 2007 :

a) The application under Section 152 CPC has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff after a lapse of 11 years from the date of the judgment dated 21.01.2008;

b) Section 152 CPC will come into play only when there are clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the judgment;

c) The impugned order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the Trial Court will amount to altering the earlier judgment dated

21.01.2008; and d) The impugned order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the Trial Court will amount to reviewing the earlier judgment dated

21.01.2008 and is not permissible under law.

7. Heard Mr.A.S.Sathiesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants and perused the materials placed on record before this Court. Since no adverse orders are passed against the respondent/plaintiff, notice to the respondent/plaintiff is dispensed with.

8. This Court does not find any merit in the grounds raised by the petitioners/defendants in this revision for the following reasons :

i) The respondent/plaintiff had sought for the following reliefs in the plaint seeking for specific performance of an agreement of sale:

a) to grant a decree in favour of the Plaintiff for Specific Performance of Executed Sale Deed dated 20.11.2006 by directing the defendants to register the executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and on their failure, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to register the Deed i