P L D 1992 Lahore 261 (PLP)

4. The application has been opposed by the respondents‑judgment debtors through a written reply.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has only contended that the rate of interest @ 14% per annum without any rests as mentioned in the judgment and decree has crept in due to accidental slip or omission and that the documents annexed with the plaint clearly show that the interest chargeable by the decree‑holder from the judgment‑debtor was 14% per annum with quarterly rests. He in the above view of the matter submitted that this accidental omission or slip merits to be corrected by invoking the provisions of Section 152, C.P.C. read with Section 151, C.P.C.

6. Contrarily, the learned counsel for the respondents‑judgment debtors has emphatically controverted the above contention raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the tenor of the plaint taken as a whole shows that the decree‑holder‑petitioner had specifically claimed interest at the rate of 1401o per annum without any rests and that the prayer clause also very clearly and unambiguously claims interest without any rests.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents also contended that by the above conduct of the decree.‑holder it should be deemed to have abandoned/relinquished claim of interest with any rests whatsoever.

8. It was next argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the judgment and the preliminary decree clearly give the rate of interest chargeable which was rightly awarded as 14% per annum. in view of the clear averments made in the plaint. In the same context, the learned counsel submitted that not only the preliminary decree gives the above rate of interest but it was also so mentioned in the final decree.

9. The learned counsel for the respondents‑judgment‑debtors lastly contended that there is no accidental slip or omission in the judgment of this Court nor in the consequent preliminary and final decrees and, therefore, the sought for invocation of Sections 152, C.P.C. and 151, C.P.C is wholly misconceived.

10. Having given consideration to the controversy I am of the view that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner‑decree‑holder have no force. A perusal of the plaint shows without any ambiguity that the petitioner had in the plaint throughout claimed interest at the rate of 14% per annum. without there being any mention of rests. In this behalf reference may usefully be made 1 to the heading of the plaint and paras 4, 6(d) and 7 thereof. In the prayer clause also the plaintiff very categorically claimed the interest at the rate of 14% per annum without there being any mention of quarterly rests. The relevant portion for facility of reference is reproduced hereunder:‑‑ "That a decree for the recovery of Rs.10,86,562 with costs and interest at the stipulated rate of 14% p.a. till realization of the same be very kindly passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants." Now a look at the judgment shows that on the basis of the averments of the plaint the rate of interest allowed by this Court was clearly 14% per annum without any rests. In the context of the above position of record it cannot be legitimately argued that the mention of rate of interest as 14% per annum without any mention about quarterly rests was on account of any accidental omission or slip.

11. Section 152, C.P.C. which has been invoked in the case in hand is reproduced hereunder for facility of reference:‑‑ "

152. Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders ‑‑‑ Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties." From a plain reading of the above section it clearly emerges that the provision is intended to cater for a situation requiring correction by the Court either on its own motion or on an application of any of the parties any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. The aforementioned circumstances in the case in hand do not in any manner attract the provisions of Section 152, C.P.C. inasmuch as there is neither any clerical or arithmetical mistake nor accidental slip or omission in the judgment or decree qua the rate of interest as it is in accord with the claim made in the plaint. It may also be observed that even, after the passing of the final decree, no such point was raised for a very long time and not only that this application has been filed on 3‑6‑1990 although the decree as it exists stood satisfied long time ago i.e. on 8‑1‑1990. This is yet another aspect of the matter which would disentitle the petitioner from seeking any relief from this Court by invoking the provisions of Section 152, C.P.C. In fact the belated filing of this application lends support to the contention raised on behalf of the respondents‑judgment‑debtors that the petitioner‑bank has in order to cause harassment to the judgment‑debtors and to continue‑with holding the documents of title of the property, bolstered up the claim of interest with quarterly rests.

12. Before parting with the case, it may also be observed that there is no dearth of authority on the point that the scope of Section 152, C.P.C. is only to correct arithmetical/clerical mistakes or errors arising due to accidental slips or omissions in the judgments, decrees or orders. It is well‑settled that where the alleged mistake is not clerical or arithmetical or has not arisen from any accidental slip or omission, the Court has no jurisdiction under Section 151, C.P.C. to correct it. In such cases the remedy of the aggrieved party is to prefer appeal or if permissible to apply to the Court by way of review.

13. Similarly, the scope of section 151, C.P.C. cannot be so widely extended so as to make it available in the cases of the nature in hand.

14. Yet another aspect of the matter is that a Court would not be justified in making a correction by invoking section 152, C.P.C. which involves the payment of a larger sum of money by one party to another after satisfaction of the decree as it had been passed as nothing remains to be done and the decree would be deemed to be dead, for all intents and purposes. In fact the position emerging from order dated 21‑2‑1990 passed in C.M. No.180‑B of 1989 wherein it is stated that it has been conceded on behalf of the decree holder that if the amount is worked out on the basis of interest at the rate of 14% per annum without any rests, the entire decretal amount stands paid, is that the decree for money effectually stood satisfied and discharged and, therefore, the Court has become functus officio and could no longer entertain an application for amendment under section 152, C.P.C. In view of the foregoing discussion there is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. The parties are however, left to bear their own costs. M.B.A./M‑304/L Petition dismissed.