2007 PLP 412 (MLD)
GHULAM MUHAMMAD and 4 others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL GHAFFAR and 7 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 412 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM MUHAMMAD and 4 others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL GHAFFAR and 7 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 412 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 412 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 412 (MLD) (GHULAM MUHAMMAD and 4 others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL GHAFFAR and 7 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Abbas Khan for Petitioners.
- Asif Munir Kantt and Muhammad Siddique for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 152
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell
Rectification of clerical error in the decree
Suit was decreed, but there being clerical error decree regarding Khasra number, petitioner filed application under S.152, C.P.C. for rectification of decree
Said application was dismissed by the Trial Court and revision petition filed by petitioner against judgment of the Trial Court was also dismissed
Application filed by petitioner under S.152, C.P.C. was dismissed on the ground that same having been filed after 25 years, was time-barred
Legal representatives of deceased respondent, had stated that they had no objection if decree passed in favour of petitioner, was ordered to be readied
Allowing constitutional petition decree was corrected, accordingly by the High Court.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
The petitioners filed a suit against the respondent Abdul Ghaffar seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell. The suit was decreed on 31-3-1980 on the basis of a conceding statement made by Haji Aziz Muhammad, general attorney of the respondent. The land purchased by the petitioners was comprised in Khasra No.2142. The petitioners realized many years after that on account of clerical error the khasra number mentioned in the decree was 4142. They, therefore, filed an application under section 152, C.P.C. for rectification of the decree. Notice was issued to the respondent Abdul Ghaffar. Once again his general attorney appeared and stated that there was no objection if the decree was rectified. This application under section 152, however, has been dismissed by the learned trial Court and a revision petition filed by the petitioners has also been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhakkar, vide order, dated 24-4-2006. The reason given by the learned revisional Court for disallowing the petitioners application is that it had been filed after 25 years and was, therefore, time-bared.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that a clerical error in the decree can be rectified at any time and there is no bar of limitation for filing an application for this purpose. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioners have referred to the case titled Manzoor Hussain and 9 others v. Malik Karam Khan and 2 others (1991 SCMR 2451).
3. On the above basis it is submitted that the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned Additional District Judge as the revisional Court are not legally sustainable.
4. The L.Rs of respondent Abdul Ghaffar have entered appearance through counsel. Muhammad Siddique son of Abdul Ghaffar is also present in person. Both Muhammad Siddique and learned counsel for the respondents confirm the facts asserted by the petitioners and state that they have no objection if the decree passed in favour of the petitioners, dated 31-3-1980 is ordered to be rectified. In the circumstances, his petition is allowed. As a consequence, Khasra No.4142 bearing in the decree shall be corrected to read as Khasra No.2142.
5. This petition is allowed in the above terms. H.B.T./G-5/L Petition allowed.