P L D 1988 Karachi 362 (PLP)

The petitioner has filed this application for correction in the judgment dated 23‑10‑1985 the price of the plot bearing No.B/354, Unit No.8 Latifabad, Hyderabad measuring 600 sq. yards from Rs.12,000 to Rs.1,

200. This price was mentioned in the judgment because in the petition, the petitioner had averred that the allotment order of the plot was issued to him "vide registration No.7552 on payment of a sum of Rs.12,000". According to the petitioner it should have been Rs.1,200 and due to typographical error it has been mentioned as Rs.12,

000. He has also filed a photo copy of the allotment order in which it has been stated that Mr. Abdul Rahim s/o Rahim Bux having made a payment of Rs.1,200 towards the premium of 'B' class plot No.354 in Block No.l of Unit No.VIIt measuring 600 sq. yards in Shah Latifabad (vide challan No.PJ dated 29‑1‑1963) this allotment order is issued to him subject to the conditions as ...." The judgment was passed by a Bench consisting of my learned brother Abdul Hayee Kureshi, J. the then Chief Justice and myself, but since he has retired the application has been placed for orders before me. The question arises whether an order or decree can be amended without amending the pleadings. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Rashida Begum and another v. Ghulam Fareed Shah and another P L D 1973 Lah. 63? where it was observed that "the Court has power to amend the decree without amendment of the pleadings in a case where the error in the decree has occurred on account of the error in the pleadings,. Reliance was placed on Noor v. Muhammad 1970 S C M R 133 and Asa Singly v. Jagjeet Singh 1923 Lah.

147. The learned counsel also referred to Muhammad Munawar v. Ch. Khursheed Alam 1979 S C M R

159. In this case the number of the property was not mentioned by the Rent Controller in his order and it was described as a shop although it consisted of shop arid residential premises. At the time of execution the petitioner applied for correction of the order by describing the number of the property. The application was granted but ultimately when it was challenged in appeal the following observation was made‑. "But the learned Rent Controller had, in his order, dated 18‑11‑1975, evidently misdescribed the property as a shop, and consequently the respondent had every right to ask him to correct its description so as to, read as property bearing No.P‑24, consisting of a shop and a residential apartment above it. To this end, therefore, the learned Rent Controller had the jurisdiction to correct the said error which was patent on the face of the record, and to say that he had actually reviewed his earlier order, would be incorrect." Again reference was also made to Karam Ali and two others v . Allah Ditta and another 1987 C L C 1096. There was a mistake in describing the property in the plaint and consequently when a decree was passed the same mistake also occurred there. An application for amendment of the decree was made and it was allowed by the Court. From these authorities it is clear that where there is any mistake apparent on the face of the record in the pleadings and on that basis any mistake has occurred in the judgment and decree, the n be corrected by the Court, which has passed the decree same can even without amending the pleadings. For correcting such mistakes in the judgment or decree the High Court can exercise power under section 151, C.P.C. as well as under section 152, C.P.C. In the present case the documents produced clearly show that the allotment was issued on payment of Rs .1,

200. I , therefore, allow the application and accordingly correct the judgment. A. A. /A‑289/ K Application accepted.