JUDGMENT
Vinod K. Sharma, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Sonepat vide which application moved by the petitioners for setting aside exparte proceedings was ordered to be dismissed as affirmed by learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat.
2. The petitioners had filed a suit against Smt. Har Kaur daughter of Johri claiming a declaration that they were owners to the extent of 3/4th share out of share of Har Kaur in the land measuring 65 kanals 3 marlas comprised in khewat No. 53 khatoni No. 78 situated in village Tihar Tehsil Gohana. The said suit was declared on the basis of admission made by Smt. Har Kaur in the written statement as well as in the statement given in the Court However, subsequently, an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved for correcting typographical error on the plea that in the written statement Smt. Har Kaur had consented to decree for 1/4 th share and not 3/4 th hare and reference was also made to the statement made in the court where confession was given qua 1/4th share only.
3. Learned court feelow came to the conclusion that a typographical error in the judgment and decree is required to be corrected and ordered correction of the decree.
4. The petitioners thereafter moved an application claiming that they had no notice of the correction proceedings. However, in the defence a plea was taken that the proceedings under Section 152 of the Code in the presence of the applicants and their counsel and therefore, the order passed was valid. It was also pleaded that the correction made in the decree was only to rectify a clerical mistake and therefore, the application made by the petitioners was not competent.
On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:
1. Whether there are sufficient grounds for setting aside the exparte order dated 5.6.1985? OP Applicants.
2. Whether the applicants have no locus standi to file the application? OPR
3. Relief.
5. Learned trial court recorded a finding on issue No. 1, that the petitioners had notice of the proceedings and therefore, it was observed that ground taken for setting aside exparte proceedings did not constitute sufficient ground. On issue No. 2 it was held that as patent clerical error has been corrected it could be rectified even suo motu and the applicants have no locus standi to file the present application. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the order passed by the learned trial Court before the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat. The appeal was also dismissed.
6. Learned lower appellate Court rejected the contention of the petitioner qua service by observing that in fact notice was not even required as by way of order under challenge a clerical mistake which has inadvertently occurred while preparing the decree was required to be corrected. The Court also observed that the decree for 1/4th share was merely passed and error declaring the petitioners to be owner of 3/4th share was due to typographical error in the decree-sheet and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that once the petitioners had filed a suit for 3/4th share and the decree sheet was prepared in consonance with the suit as filed it would not be said that it was the typographical error and therefore, the application under Section 152 of the Code was not competent.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that in any case, once the decree was to be corrected in exercise of powers under Section 152 of the Code then notice to the petitioners was necessary and once no notice was issued the impugned order could not be sustained and the learned Courts below therefore, were in error in dismissing the application moved by the petitioners for setting aside exparte proceedings taken on the application moved under Section 152 of the Code.
9. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and find no force in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners.
10. It is not in dispute that in the written-statement filed concession was given for declaration for 1/4th share and judgment was also passed to the same effect. However, in the decree in view of prayer made in the suit the petitioners were shown to be owner of 3/4th share of the property. Thus, it was obviously a typographical error in the decree which could be corrected by the Court at any stage on an application or in exercise of power of suo motu.
11. The petition under Section 152 of the Code was, therefore, competent. Learned lower appellate court was also right in coming to the conclusion that no notice was even necessary for correcting inadvertent typographical error in the decree. The orders passed being in consonance with law do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Dismissed.