2009 PLP 373 (YLR)

NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.

By these applications the plaintiff has prayed for correction in the order dated 8-10-2008. In all the applications similar facts and law point are involved and the same are heard and disposed of by common order. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submit that in the order passed in suit No.B-13/2008 an amount of Rs.14,407,041 instead of Rs.5,185,621 has been mentioned. Learned counsel further submit that according to order dated 8-10-2008, the plaintiff is only liable to pay the amount to the Bank after deduction 6% from the markup which according to him is payable by defendant No.2. He then submits that the plaintiff has paid the amount which is in excess of principal amount. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 in Suit No.B-13/2008 have referred to the following para from the said order dated 8-10-2008, which reads as under:-- "In the statement failed by learned counsel for the plaintiff the total mark up component to be paid by the CDGK is shown to be Rs.4,402,232, calculated from inception of the lease. Since the learned counsel were directed to file statement only for the default period, therefore, this figure is not taken into consideration." Learned counsel for the CDGK states that CDGK have also certain claims against the plaintiff in respect of the service and terminal charges and that the amount is more than the amount claimed by the plaintiff and requests that he may be allowed to file a statement. The statement may be filed by the learned counsel for CDGK and the same will be considered on its own merits after hearing the concerned parties. The order was passed and the plaintiff was allowed to deduct 6% mark-up to be paid by the CDGK for the period for which the instalments were not paid. This is reflected in Para 1 of Page 4 of the said order. Furthermore, from the para referred by the learned counsel for defendant, the position is very clear that the markup is only to be deducted from unpaid instalments and not from the instalments which were already paid by the plaintiff. Any clerical or arithmetical omission or error in the order can be corrected by invoking the jurisdiction under section 152 of. Cr.P.C. and the same cannot be used to reopen the case. The specific intent cannot be corrected. The intention is very clear from the said order that the plaintiff has to pay the balance instalments after deducting 6% markup. In view of the above, the applications have no merits and are accordingly dismissed. The applications are disposed of in the above terms. M.B.A./A-167/K Applications dismissed.