2000 PLP 1035 (SCMR)

SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.

The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order, dated 5-10-1999 delivered by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court whereby writ petition filed by Ghulam Farid respondent was accepted and the correction/amendment prayed for by the respondent in the plaint and decree-sheet in Civil Suit No. 179 of 1973 field on 19-5-1973 was allowed.

2. The facts in brief are that Muhammad Hasan respondent No.6 in the writ petition had sold land owned by him measuring 37 Kanals 6 Marlas situated in Mouza Anokh Singh, Tehsil and District Bahawalnagar in favour of Kashmir, respondent No.5 in the writ petition by means of Mutation No.196, dated 4-5-1972. The respondent Ghulam Farid filed a suit to pre empt the aforesaid sale. During the pendency of the spit Muhammad Hussain the vendor/respondent No.6 in the Writ Petition filed declaratory suit on 18-5-1973 against Kashmir respondent No.5 in the writ petition disowning the sale transaction. The suit was contested and in the written statement the pleas raised in the plaint were acknowledged, hence mutation was set aside by a learned Civil Judge vide order, dated 30-6-1973 and the decree was implemented in the Revenue Record on 16-7-1985. As a result of this consent declaratory decree the suit for pre-emoting the sale filed by the respondent. Ghulam Farid was dismissed vide order, dated 22-4-1977. After the lapse of 8 years, Ghulam Farid respondent purchased this land for a consideration of Rs.60,000 from Muhammad Hasan, respondent No.6 in the writ petition through a registered sale-deed, dated 29-8-1985 and a mutation in respect thereof was also entered and respondent Ghulam Farid took possession of the land.

3. On 19-7-1988 the previous vendee, namely, Kashmir respondent No.5 in the writ petition against whom a declaratory decree, dated 30-6-1973 negating the sale of land in his favour was passed, submitted an application to the Deputy Commissioner alleging that the name of Mouza in the decree against him was Amar Singh and not Anokh Singh, and therefore, the implementation of the decree in Mouza Anokh Singh was illegal and the same was liable-to be reviewed. It was also prayed that the beneficiaries be proceeded in accordance with law. On this application the Deputy Commissioner sought a report from the Revenue Officer and detailed report was submitted in which it was stated that Mutation No.313 was correct, but the mistake of the district of Monza had crept into the decree-sheet. On having come to know of the mistake, a joint application was submitted before the learned Civil Judge by the decree-holder Muhammad Hassan respondent No.6 in the writ petition and Ghulam Farid respondent for correction of district of Mouza in the decree-sheet. During the pendency of this application the judgment-debtor, respondent No.5 prevailed upon the decree-holder Muhammad Hussain, respondent No.6 to' disown the said application. Resultantly, the learned Civil Judge,, dismissed the said application on~ 29-1-1989. The said order was challenged by the respondent Ghulam Farid by filing a revision, which was also disposed of by the learned District Judge with the observation that it was still left open to the trial Court to make a fresh decision if an application in this regard is made by the respondent Ghulam Farid. In pursuance of the said order, the respondent Ghulam Farid submitted a fresh application on 29-7-1989 under section 152/53, C.P.C. in" the Court of the Civil Judge with the prayer that the name of Mouza Amar Singh be substituted with Mouza Anokh Singh in the decree-sheet. Another application was also made for implementing the same correction in the plaint. Both these applications were resisted by the respondent Kashmir and consequently the learned Civil Judge rejected the applications vide order, dated 25-6-1995. This order was challenged in revision petition, which was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide order dated 3-3-1996. On the basis of the order passed by the Civil Judge and the Additional District Judge, the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar allowed the application of respondent No.5 seeking review of Mutation No.313 and the revision of the respondent Ghulam Farid against this order had also been dismissed by the Commissioner, Bahawalpur.

4. Constrained by these circumstances, Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court was invoked. The learned Judge in Chambers rightly held that it was a pity that a clerical mistake could not be corrected despite the fact that immediate remedial steps were taken. After hearing the learned counsel at length, we subscribe to the view of the learned Judge in Chambers that Kashmir respondent No.5 had initiated the proceedings for review of Mutation No.313 with ulterior motive because it is evident that Mutation NO. 196, the subject-matter of the suit filed by Muhammad Hussain, respondent No.6 against Kashmir respondent clearly shows that the ' suit land was situated in Mouza Anokh Singh, Tehsil and District Bahawalnagar and ` the pre-emotion suit filed by the respondent Ghulam Farid was also in respect of the same suit land. We are also of the view that describing the suit land situated in Mouza Amar Singh instead of Mouza Anokh Singh in the plaint filed by respondent Muhammad Hussain in the declaratory suit was nothing but a slip of pen and therefore, respondent Kashmir cannot be allowed to take advantage of such innocent mistake. The sale-deed executed by respondent Kashmir in favour of the respondent Ghulam Farid also reveals that the suit land was situated in Mouza Anokh Singh. Having come to these conclusions, in our view, the learned Single Judge rightly placed reliance upon sections 151, 152 and 153, C.P.C. under which rectification of such clerical error was permissible. In this view of the matter, the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, in our view, rightly exercised the Constitutional jurisdiction in setting aside the orders passed by the Courts below and by allowing the rectification of the mistake. Resultantly, we do not find any merit in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. Q.M.H./M-35/S Petition dismissed.