Babu Lal vs Roshan Lal
2022 Latest Caselaw 6245 P&H

                                                                               203



       In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh


                                                 Civil Revision No. 8897 of 2018

                                                   Date of Decision: 06.07.2022


Babu Lal
                                                                  ... Petitioner(s)

                                        Versus

Roshan Lal and Others
                                                                ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:     Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate
             for the petitioner(s).

             Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate
             for the respondents.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1. There is an ex parte decree granting permanent injunction

dated 01.10.2003 against the petitioner. In other words, the petitioner is a

judgment debtor. During the pendency of execution petition, it transpired

that the decree has been passed with reference to the property situated in

rectangle No. 21 khasra No. 7, whereas actually, it should be rectangle No.

21 khasra No. 1/7. An application under Section 152 CPC, 1908 read with

Section 151 CPC, 1908 was filed by the decree holder. The Court, after

appointing A Local Commissioner, came to the conclusion that there is a

typographical error as rectangle No. 21 khasra No.7 does not exist. Hence,

the Court permitted the correction of the typographical error.

2. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties, at length and

with their able assistance, perused the paper-book.

3. The learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that 1 of 2

such amendment could not be permitted by the Court without amending the

plaint. He submits that the suit was filed with reference to the property

comprised in rectangle No. 21 khasra No. 7.

4. After hearing the arguments and perusing the report submitted

by the Local Commissioner, this Court is of the considered view that there is

a typographical/printing error. Section 152 CPC, 1908 enables the Court to

correct the clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders,

including the errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission and

the same may be corrected by the Court at any point of time or at any stage

of proceedings.

5. In the facts of the present case, there is an obvious

printing/typographical error arising from an accidental slip which has been

ordered to be corrected. Hence, no ground is made out to interfere.

Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed.

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge July 06, 2022 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

2 of 2