Madhuri And Another vs Dy.Director Of Consolidation ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 4954 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 21
 
Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 495 of 2013
 

 
Petitioner :- Madhuri And Another
 
Respondent :- Dy.Director Of Consolidation Sitapur And 2 Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Singh,J.P.Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avadhesh Kumar,V.K.Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.

Heard Sri J.P. Yadav, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Sri Avadhesh Kumar learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and 3, who appeared through caveat.

DDC, Sitapur decided the revision No. 310 Jay Devi Vs. Madhuri and others and Revision No. 325 Lokram Vs. Gayatri Devi and others on 28.11.2011. Thereafter, respondents no. 2 and 3 Lokram and Jay Devi filed an application before DDC mentioning therein that the Schedule / Talika which was annexed alongwith judgement dated 28.11.2011 was not in accordance with the judgement. The said application was allowed on 8.7.2013 by DDC, Sitaput and it was directed that correct schedule / Talika had been prepared in accordance with the order dated 28.11.2011 which shall form part of the order. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited the Full Bench authority of this Court reported in Smt. Anar Kali Vs. Deputy Director of consolidation 1997 (15) LCD-921 holding that DDC has got no power to review.

The application on which the impugned order dated 8.7.2013 has been passed was not a review petition.

The Court specifically inquired from learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether the observations made in the impugned order that the earlier Talika was not in accordance with the order dated 28.11.2011 was correct of not ? The learned counsel for the petitioners could not deny that earlier Talika was not in accordance with the earlier order.

The application on which the impugned order was passed cannot be said to be review petition by any stretch of imagination. Impugned order also does not amount to review of earlier order dated 28.11.2011. The said order has not been touched in the least. It has been left intact. It was correction of a clerical error as is provided under Section 152 C.P.C.  Even independently of Section 152 C.P.C. every court and tribunal has got inherent power to correct typing / arithmetical errors in its judgment. Accordingly I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is, therefore, dismissed.

Order Date :- 6.8.2013 / S. Kumar