CH. NAEEM MASOOD, J.---The captioned application has been filed under section 151, Cr. .P.C. With the following prayer:-- "It is most respectfully prayed that the C.M. May kindly be allowed and the necessary correction as A under may very kindly be allowed to be made to meet the ends of justice.
'The order dated 1-4-2009 passed in Writ Petition No,458 be deemed to be passed in Writ Petition No,456 of 2004 involving Rs,56,000 as being not pressed and withdrawn while order of the same date passed in Writ Petition No,456 of 2004 be deemed to be passed in Writ Petition No,458 of 2004 wherein recovery of Rs . 22,76,000 is involved by remanding the case to the respondents. Affidavits of Malik Muhammad Rafiq Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan, counsel for the applicant/petitioner and Ashfaq Ahmad clerk of the counsel are attached herewith."
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that affidavits have been sworn in by the learned counsel and his clerk that W.P. No,458 of 2004 was not to be withdrawn whereas W.P. No,456 of 2004 had to be withdrawn as "not pressed" and it was inadvertent mistake which merits to be corrected, and relying upon section 152, C.P.C., it was submitted in para. 11 as follows:-- "11. That under section 152, Cr.P.C. It has been laid down in repeated judgments of Honourable High Courts and Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as Indian Superior Courts, that to meet the ends of justice, the errors arising from accidental slip, clerical or arithmetical omission, on the part of person, who prepared the documents, same can be corrected by the Honourable Court. Reliance is placed on PLD 1988 Kar. 362 Abdul Rehman v. Commissioner Hyderabad and 13 others, in which it was held that the mistake had occurred in the judgment and decree even if there was some error in the pleadings and were apparent on the face of record. It was also laid down in 1997 M LD 2003 DB, ASBES Ltd. And 4 others v. Bank of Credit Commerce head note (g) that section 152, C.P.C. Is not confined to catering the correction of clerical slips or omissions but is extended to accidental slips of omissions, 1991 SCM R 2451."
3. The case in hand is not covered by section 151, Cr.P.C. Or section 152, C.P.C. It is covered under Order XXIII, Rule 1(3), C.P.C. There is no provision in this Rule to entertain an application under sections 151 and 152, C.P.C. This is not a clerical mistake. It is a case of conscious withdrawal not pressed.
4. The authorities quoted by the learned counsel are distinguishable. It is clearly mentioned in 1991 SCM R 2451 Manzoor Hussain and 9 others v. Malik Karam Khan and 2 others" incorrect specification or incorrect description of the particulars of the property are always be resolved." The case before the Honourable apex Court was not a withdrawal of petition case.
'Likewise in 1997 M LD 2003 it is held that "accidental slip of description of decree was involved". It also deals with the clerical mistakes to be correct under section 152, C.P.C.
5. Similarly in PLD 1988 Kar. 362 Abdul Rahim v. The Commissioner Hyderabad and 13 others there was a mistake in the pleadings which resulted in the mistake of decree, which was corrected. But, here it is a withdrawal of case and not a slip or accidental slip in any sort of description.
6. The application has been submitted under section 151, C.P.C, which is not applicable to correct withdrawal order. The reliance has been placed on section 152, C.P.C. But there is no clerical mistake. Hence both the provisions are not applicable.
7. This Court is functous officio after passing the withdrawal order. As no live matter is pending before this Court, therefore, the instant application is dismissed.