IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Revision No.39 of 2009
Shaligram Singh
Versus
Ram Sudhar Singh & Ors
----------------------------------
5 14-9-2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite
parties.
The present revision application has been filed
against the order dated 24-10-2008 by which the petition
under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been
rejected by the court below.
It is not disputed that a suit for partition bearing
T.S.No. 120 of 1994 had been filed, which ended into a
compromise before the Lok Adalat and a compromise
decree was accordingly passed. However, when the decree-
holder filed a petition for execution of the said decree, he
added three more plots in the execution petition, although
those plots were not there in the decree. On the objection by
the judgment-debtor, those three plots had been ordered to
be deleted from the execution petition. Aggrieved by the
said order the decree-holder moved this Court in C.R.No.
674 of 2005 which was dismissed by order dated 7-11-2007
with liberty to the decree-holder to take steps for
2
amendment in the compromise decree itself. Pursuant to the
said liberty the decree-holder filed a petition for amendment
in the compromise decree by including three plots, but the
said prayer was rejected by the order dated 24-10-2008 and
the said order was allowed to attain finality, as the same was
not challenged by the decree-holder. However, the decree
holder filed a petition purporting to be under section 152 of
the Code of Civil Procedure making the prayer for inclusion
of the three plots in the decree. By the impugned order the
court below has rejected the prayer on the ground that the
same prayer had earlier been rejected. The further ground
for rejecting the prayer of the decree-holder/petitioner is
that the petition under section 152 of the C.P.C. can be
entertained for clerical or arithmetical error occurring in the
decree and not for any other purpose.
Learned counsel has submitted that in the
compromise petition those three plots were there but by
mistake in the compromise decree the three plots could not
be included and such omission was not very material.
However, in view of the earlier rejection of the same
prayer, the learned court below has committed no illegality
in passing the impugned order. There is no infirmity in the
3
impugned order as such.
This revision application is accordingly
dismissed.
( V. Nath, J.)
roy