Punjab-Haryana High Court

Joginder Singh vs Punjab Small Industries & Export ... on 23 October, 2024

                                        Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139372




S. No.107

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH
                          ****
                                         ESA No.23 of 2018 (O&M)
                                        Date of Decision:23.10.2024
Joginder Singh                        .....Appellant
      Vs.
Punjab Small Industries and Export Corpora7on Ltd. & anr.
                                      .....Respondents

CORAM:-      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:-    Mr. Vinay Puri, Advocate for the appellant.
             (Through Video Conferencing).
                          ****


DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral)

By way of this Execu%on Second Appeal, the appellant- decree holder has assailed the order dated 06.02.2015 passed by the Execu%ng Court dismissing an applica%on under Sec%on 151/152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which order has been conﬁrmed by the Appellate Court by way of the impugned order dated 18.11.2017.

As the paper book would reveal that the appellant- ﬁrm is engaged in supply of raw material. It was alleged that respondent- Corpora%on had failed to supply the material to the appellant- ﬁrm despite booking and issuance of the delivery order which had compelled it to ﬁle a suit for mandatory injunc%on. That Civil Suit No.447/449 of 1985 was decreed on 23.01.1989 whereby a decree of mandatory injunc%on was passed direc%ng the defendants- respondents herein to release the allo9ed quota men%oned in Annexure A.1 to which the appellant was en%tled as per rates. Permanent injunc%on was also issued restraining the defendant No.3- respondent from selling, distribu%ng or otherwise dispensing of the quota of the appellant- plain%ﬀ to anybody else. For implementa%on of the afore-said decree, execu%on was ﬁled and the property of the JD was a9ached. JD preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by this Court on 16.12.2008 by giving direc%on to the JD to comply with the decree, upto 16.02.2009. There was also a dispute as to the en%tlement of the decree holder. This High Court vide order dated 04.11.1992 had directed the Execu%ng Court to decide the total en%tlement of the decree holder as to the raw material which was to be supplied by the judgment debtor. Pursuant to this order, the

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139372

trial Court calculated the total en%tlement of the decree holder to be 34.465 metric tonnes of the raw material vide its order dated 18.01.1993.

Decree holder moved an applica%on under Sec%on 151/152 CPC to correct the said order dated 18.01.1993 and to execute the order of this Court dated 16.12.2008, which was aﬃrmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 28.05.2009. The applica%on has been dismissed by both the Courts below by holding that decree stood already complied with and that there was no clerical mistake requiring any correc%on.

The afore-said ordres have been assailed by way of the present appeal. ADer hearing learned counsel for the appellant at length, this Court does not ﬁnd any merit in this appeal. It will be relevant to no%ce the observa%ons made by the Appellate Court which reads as under:-

"10. Appellant/plain ﬀ/DH ﬁled a suit for mandatory injunc on and permanent injunc on against respondent/defendant Punjab Small Industries and Export Corpora on Limited on 11.03.1985 tled as "Joginder Singh Vs. Punjab Small Industries and Export Corpora on Ltd."

which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 23.01.1989 by holding that a decree for mandatory injunc on direc ng the defendant to release the allo2ed quota men oned in Annexure-A a2ached and the quota of which he is en tled as per the rate and for permanent injunc on restraining the defendant for selling, dispatching or otherwise disposing the quota of the plain ﬀ except the plain ﬀ. Appellant/plain ﬀ/DH ﬁled an execu on applica on for execu on of the said decree in which the learned execu ng Court passed an order dated 28.04.1992 that the JDs were bound to deliver the goods of the allocated quota to the Decree Holder at the rates prevalent in the year 11.03.1985 when the suit was ins tuted and le2ers in ques on dated 14.01.1992 which undisputedly are at the current rates of the year 1992, can not be held as a compliance to the decree for mandatory injunc on passed by the Civil Court. The respondent/JD ﬁled a revision pe on against the said order dated 28.04.1992 before the Hon'ble High Court in which the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court passed an order dated 14.11.1992 whereby the execu ng Court was directed to ﬁnally decide the ma2er within a period

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139372

of one month. The learned execu ng Court as per the above said direc on of the Hon'ble High Court decided the en tlement of the plain ﬀ about raw material which plain ﬀ is en tled to get from the respondent/JD vide order dated 18.01.1993 by holding that that total en tlement of the plain ﬀ is as per allocated quota of diﬀerence speciﬁcally as men oned in Annexure-A a2ached to the judgement, and not as per the total booked raw material and a:er calcula ng the raw material allo2ed to the plain ﬀ/DH and the raw material already li:ed by the appellant/plain ﬀ, the en tlement of the plain ﬀ came out 34.465 metric ton of the raw material. No appeal or revision was ﬁled by appellant/plain ﬀ/DH against the said order dated 18.01.1993. Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the revision pe on No.2981 of 1992 ﬁled by JD/respondent against order dated 28.04.1992 vide order dated 16.12.2008 and the pe oner (JD/respondent) was directed to comply with the decree by 16.02.2009. JD/respondent approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by ﬁling Special Leave Pe on against the said order of Hon'ble High Court, but the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 08.05.2009. JDs complied the said decree by supplying the raw material to the plain ﬀ/DH as per order dated 18.01.1993. The appellant/plain ﬀ ﬁled present applica on under Sec on 151/152 CPC for correc on of order dated 18.01.1993 on the ground that the learned execu ng court while deciding the en tlement of the appellant/plain ﬀ has not taken into considera on delivery order no.23092 dated 11.02.1985 of 106 metric ton and delivery order No.22283 of M.S. Angle and as such the calcula on of en tlement was not made in accordance with the decree.

11. Sec on 152 of CPC provides that clerical or arithme cal mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any me be corrected by the Court either of its own mo on or on the applica on of any of the par es. Thus, Clerical or arithme cal mistake or error arising from any accident slip or omission in judgment/decree or order can be corrected by any me by the court. Now

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139372

the ques on requires to be determined is: whether order dated 18.01.1993 whereby the learned execu ng court decided the en tlement of the plain ﬀ qua the raw material as per the decree dated 23.01.1989 contains any clerical/arithme cal mistake or any error therein from any accidental slip or omission or not ?

12. Learned execu ng Court a:er taking into considera on all the materials available on record has held categorically that the only en tlement of the plain ﬀ is in respect of the allocated quota as men oned in AnnexureA which cover his total relief for which the execu on has been sought. The conten on of the learned counsel for the appellant/plain ﬀ/DH that the learned execu ng court has not taken into considera on the delivery orders No.23092 dated 11.02.1985 of 106 metric ton and delivery order No.22283 has no weight as learned execu ng Court has taken into considera on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the decree holder in this regard as is men oned in order dated 18.01.1993 itself. So, it can not be said that there is a clerical or arithme cal mistake in the order dated 18.01.1993 which is required to be corrected under Sec on 152 of the CPC. Hon'ble Andhara Pradesh High Court in A.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpora on Limited's case (supra), on which appellant/plain ﬀ placed reliance has also held that Sec on 152 CPC provides for correc on of such mistakes at any me without any me limit. It is competent for a court to correct not only arithme cal and clerical errors but also accidental slips and omissions. In Niyamat Ali Molla's case (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that a decree may be corrected by the Court both in exercise of its power under Sec on 152 CPC as also under Sec on 151 of CPC and no court can, under the cover of the aforesaid Sec ons modify, alter or add to the terms of its original judgment, decree or order. Thus, under the garb of Sec on 152 CPC the order dated 18.01.1993 whereby the en tlement of the appellant/plain ﬀ/DH has been decided by the learned execu ng Court, can not be amended or altered as only clerical or arithme cal mistakes can be corrected under Sec on 152 CPC.

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139372

13. In the present case, appellant/plain ﬀ has moved applica on under Sec on 151/152 CPC for correc on of order dated 18.01.1993 which does not contain any clerical or arithme cal mistake and as such learned lower Court has rightly dismissed the said applica on. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Board of Control for Cricket, India and another's case (supra) has held that Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC provides for ﬁling an applica on for review. Such an applica on for review would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record but also if the same is necessitated on account of some or for any other suﬃcient reason. Thus, a mistake on the part of the Court which would include a mistake in the nature of the undertaking may also call for a review of the order. An applica on for review would also be maintainable if there exists suﬃcient reason therefor. What would cons tute suﬃcient reason would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The words suﬃcient reason in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC is wide enough to include a misconcep on of fact or law by a Court of even an Advocate. An applica on for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curate neminem gravabit. But, in the present case appellant/plain ﬀ has not ﬁled review applica on under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC rather he has ﬁled applica on under Sec on 152 CPC for correc on of order dated 18.01.1993. In M/s Krishna Rice Mills case (supra) on which appellant/plain ﬀ/DH placed reliance is also not applicable to the facts of the present case as in this case Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that if there is direct conﬂict between judgment and decree, the founda on of the judgment are to be preferred than that of the decree. In the present case appellant/plain ﬀ has not moved present applica on for correc on in decree dated 23.01.1989 rather he has ﬁled the present applica on for correc on of order dated 18.01.1993 passed by the learned lower court while deciding the execu on applica on."

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139372

Learned counsel for the appellant could not convince this Court regarding any illegality or perversity in the afore-said order. The observa%ons are based upon proper apprecia%on of the material available on record. No interference is called for.

Dismissed.

October 23, 2024                                             ( DEEPAK GUPTA )
renu                                                                JUDGE
             Whether Speaking/reasoned          Yes/No
             Whether Reportable                 Yes/No




                                       6 of 6