ORDER
Viney Mittal, J.
1. The decree holder is petitioner before this Court.
2. A decree for pre-emption dated November 16, 1981 was passed in his favour on the payment of Rs. 8,529/- as consideration proportionately worked out for an area measuring 6 Bighas 18 Biswas plus Rs. 852.90 paise as stamp charges, totalling Rs. 9381.90 paise less 1/5th pre-emption security already deposited by the plaintiff along with registration charges. The aforesaid money was to be deposited by the decree holders on or before December 15, 1981. It was also mentioned that in case of non-payment, the suit filed by the plaintiff was deemed to have been dismissed. The decree holder claimed that the pre-emptor was required to have been told to deposit the exact amount and that the amount should have been specifically fixed in the decree itself. It is claimed that the Ahlmad of the Court had made a report on the application that Rs. 7676.90 paise were not be deposited by the pre-emptor and that Ahlmad had not informed the plaintiff about the payment of registration charges. On that basis, the registration charges were to deposited. It was claimed that the non-payment of registration charges was not intentional. Accordingly, a prayer was made for correction of the operative portion of the judgment and decree and consequently a permission of the plaintiff-decree holder to deposit the deficient amount was sought.
3. The application was resisted by the judgment debtors. It was denied that the amount had not been deposited by the decree-holder in terms of decree for want of knowledge and the aforesaid fault has actually resulted in dismissal of the suit as provided in the judgment and decree itself.
4. The learned trial Court on the basis of the material available on the record, as well as taking into consideration the provisions of law, held that there was no error in the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. The amount specified in decree was rightly specified being the sale consideration as well as the stamp charges payable by the decree holder to the judgment debtor. However, the amount of registration charges payable by the decree holder for getting the conveyance deed in his favour was not required to be mentioned and as such had not been mentioned. Accordingly, the application filed by the plaintiff-decree holder was dismissed.
5. The plaintiff has approached this Court through the present revision petition.
6. I have perused the Impugned order passed by the learned trial Court and have also taken into consideration the material available on record.
7. In my considered view, there is no merit in the present revision petition. It has been rightly pointed out by the learned trial court that there was no error in the judgment and decree dated November 16, 1981. The amount had rightly been specified by the Court and was so payable by the decree holder. The amount of registration was not, required to be mentioned. Accordingly, the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 152/153 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not actually maintainable.
8. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned trial Court and as such the present revision petition is without any merit and the same is accordingly, dismissed.