P L D 1964 Dacca 101 (PLP)

The decree‑holder obtained a decree in a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of khas possession on 13th of August 1955. The decree‑holder put the decree into execution and the decree was executed and: the execution case was disposed of on full satisfaction on 24th of April 1958. After the decree was executed it came to the notice of the decree‑holder that the decree was not drawn up in accordance with the judgment and as such an application under sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed on 24th of July 1958, for necessary amendment and correction of the decree in consonance with the judgment. The decree was amended, with a notice to the judgment‑debtors, on 10th of August 1959. The judgment debtor did not appear and contest that application. Thereafter, the decree‑holder filed an application for execution of the amended decree. Notice was served on the judgment‑debtors who filed an objection under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending inter alia that as the execution of the former decree was disposed of on full satisfaction, no decree was left to be executed and that in any view of the matter execution could not proceed in respect of the cost decreed inas much as the cost was realised.

2. The trial Court rejected the contention of the judgment debtors holding that the execution case was maintainable though the execution of the former decree was disposed of on full satisfaction. But it was held that the decree for cost could not be executed as the cost was realised previously. There was an appeal by the judgment‑debtors which was allowed by the lower appellate Court holding "After execution of a decree on full satisfaction there remains nothing to be executed again and as such this second execu tion case cannot be maintained." 'This point is also the subject‑matter of consideration before me. It is contended by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the principle that when the execution of a decree has been disposed of on full satisfaction, no execution of the same decree can be maintained is not applicable in the present case as the decree‑holder is not going to execute the former decree, namely, the decree that was passed on 13th of August 1955, but is going to execute the amended decree passed on 10th of August 1959. 1 find that there is some substance in this contention.

3. It is not disputed that the decree that was drawn at first was not in consonance with judgment passed in the suit and the amendment that has been made is in consonance with the judgment. Now the question is whether that amendment could have been made under sections 15t and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In my opinion, such amendment can be made by the Court as the Court is entitled to amend and correct its own mistake. Here the incorrect decree was drawn up due to the mistake of the decree‑holder, as the decree‑holder after obtaining a judgment in his favour had nothing to do towards drawing a decree. That was absolutely within the jurisdiction of the Court. Hence, in my opinion, the Court rightly amended the decree and removed the mistake which crept into it not due to the fault of the decree‑holder and as such decree is executable though the execution of the first decree was disposed of on full satisfaction. 4 Now the question is what will be the limitation for filing application for execution of the amended decree. It has been provided by Article 182 (iv) of the Limitation Act that three years will run from the date of the amendment of the decree Here in the present case, the amendment was made on the 10th of August 1959, and the application was filed within that period and as such the application for execution is not barred by limitation.

5. I accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the lower appellate Court and restore those of the trial Court. Let the execution case proceed in accordance with law. I direct the parties to bear their own costs. s. B./K. e. A. Appeal allowed.