C.R. No. 1289 of 2004 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision No. 1289 of 2004 (O&M)

Date of decision: January 21, 2009

Shri Jai Singh

.. Petitioner

v.

Sardar Singh and others

.. Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

Present:

Ms. Mamta Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the respondents.

...

Rajesh Bindal J.

Prayer in the present petition is for setting aside the order dated

16.9.2003, passed by Additional District Judge, Rohtak, whereby the application

filed by the petitioner for correction of decree sheet dated 26.10.1995 in Civil

Appeal No. 25 of 1995, was dismissed.

Briefly, the facts are that one Shri Pandit Ram Singh took loan from

the office of Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak in 1954. As he failed to repay the

same, recovery proceedings were initiated and the property owned by him was put

to public auction. The petitioner, being highest bidder, was successful in the

auction proceedings. The entire amount of auction money of Rs. 8,000/- was

deposited by the petitioner with the authorities way back in the 1973, when the

auction took place. The possession of the property was delivered to the petitioner

and he is in actual physical possession thereof since 27.7.1973. As the letter of

ownership was not issued in favour of the petitioner and the entries in the revenue

records were not changed, the suit was filed, which was dismissed by the trial

court. However, the learned lower appellate court decreed the same on 26.10.1995.

The application came to be filed for correction of the description of the property,

as was mentioned in the plaint, which was ultimately incorporated in the judgment

and decree. It is the order passed in the aforesaid application which is impugned

before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the mistake

committed by the petitioner at the time of filing the pleadings before the courts

C.R. No. 1289 of 2004 [2]

below was totally inadvertent. It is merely the numbers which have been wrongly

typed in the plaint, otherwise there is no dispute about the identity of the property.

The petitioner is in possession of the property ever since he purchased the same in

the open auction from the authorities for recovery of loan from Shri Pandit Ram

Singh. On account of the fact that by mistake, the description of the property was

wrongly mentioned in the plaint and consequently in the decree, the petitioner

should not be deprived of the fruits of the judgment and decree passed in his

favour by the learned Additional District judge, Rohtak way back on 26.10.1995.

She further submitted that the respondents, being not aggrieved against the

aforesaid judgment and decree, did not file any further appeal. As far as

application of the provisions of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for

short, `the CPC') for carrying out correction of the error in the judgment and

decree, even if there is error in the pleadings, reliance was placed upon Gulzara

Singh and others v. Devinder Singh and others, (2004-3) PLR 330 and Mrs. Meena

Kumari and another v. General Public and others, (2007-3) PLR 533.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that

the learned court below had decreed the suit in terms of the pleadings and prayer

made by the petitioner before the court. The description of the property, as was

given by the petitioner in the plaint, has been made part of the judgment and

decree. It is too late in the day for the petitioner to now seek correction thereof, as

it would amount to grant of relief pertaining to the property which was never

sought. Relying upon Patti Amma v. Raman Nair, AIR 1962 Kerala 6, it was

submitted that amendment of decree to rectify a judgmen