JUDGMENT JUDGMENT AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.--- Through this constitutional petition the petitioners have challenged the order passed by learned Civil Judge, Sadiqabad dated 17-6-1998 whereby application filed by Mst. Sharifan Bibi respondent under section 152, C.P.C. For correction of judgment and decree 30-1-1988 out of Suit No.364 titled as Mst. Sharifan v. Mst.Saklcu dc. Passed by Syed Bahadur Ali Shah, Civil Judge 1st Class Sadiqabad and the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge dated 20-7-1998 whereby petitioners appeal (revision petition) was dismissed in limine.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Mst.Sharifan Bibi etc. Filed a suit for declaration that she being daughter of Noor Muhammad is entitled to 1/3rd share in the properties left by her father.
The mutations showing his brother Manzoor Hussain as owner of the full property left by her father are wrong; therefore, the learned trial court after recording the evidence of both the parties after full trial decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs on 30-1-1988. The petitioners/ defendants filed an appeal before the first appellate court. Record shows that the plaintiffs/respondents also filed an appeal. Both the appeals were dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 12-9-1994. The petitioners/defendants also filed Civil Revision No.1004 of 1994 before this Court, which was also dismissed on 3-4-1995. When the plaintiffs/decree holders went for incorporation of the said decree in the Revenue Record, she felt that there is some ambiguity or mistake. She filed an application under section 152, C.P.C. Before the learned trial court. The petitioners filed the reply. The learned Civil Judge, Sadiqabad allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs/decree holders and clarified the decree in accordance with Points Nos.1 to 4 as mentioned in his judgment. The petitioners/ judgment-debtors aggrieved by that order dated 17-6-1998 filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge. Actually, the appeal was not competent. The revision was competent. The learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 20-7-1998 dismissed this appeal. Aggrieved by both the orders passed by the Civil Judge dated 17-6-1998 and the learned Additional District Judge, 20-7-1998, this writ petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the order passed by both the courts below are without jurisdiction. That after passing the decree, it becomes functus officio. Further contends that the appeal as well as revision was filed even before this Court, the judgment and decree passed in a suit attained finality which cannot be reopened. Further contends that only clerical mistake can be rectified under section 152, C.P.C. No interpretation or alteration of judgment is permissible under section 152, C.P.C. Relying upon 1976 SCM R 420 contends that section 152, C.P.C. Does not authorize the Court to supplement its judgment and decree.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs/decree-holders contends that both the courts below have exercised jurisdiction vested to them under the law. No jurisdictional defect has been pointed out. Further contends that it was a matter of inheritance in a suit and the learned trial court has not refused any part of claim of the plaintiffs/decree-holders. Only there was an ambiguity which can be termed as arithmetical mistake, therefore, when decree-holder felt problem in getting the decree incorporated in the Revenue Record, she filed an application under section 152, C.P.C. Which was validly entertained and decided by both the courts below. Further contends that the petitioners are claiming unjustifiable claim and their request is not equitable.
Further contends that in the light of (1978 SCM R 133) titled Noora v. Muhammad there was omission of one Mauza in the findings which were to be corrected and the learned trial court rightly corrected in response to the application made by the decree-holder under section 152, C.P.C.
5. Learned counsel appearing, on behalf of respondents Nos.10 to '17 contended that they are bona fide purchaser for value in Mauza Sanjar Mashaikh from the judgment-debtors/defendants. Their clam is that their rights be protected.
6. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. There is no denial from the facts that suit filed by respondent/decree-holder was fully decreed.
No part of claim was refused but unfortunately in the findings recorded in Issue No.7, there are some omissions which were sought to be corrected under section 152, C.P.C. Find those omissions were to be corrected in accordance with law laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case 1977 SCM R 133. The omission was a clerical mistake. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that findings recorded by the trial court has attained finality by the order of this Court in C.R. No. 1004 of 1994 dated 31-4-1995, I am afraid that this contention is not correct because application under section 152, C.P.C. Can be filed before the trial court for correction of the decree, even the decree has not been changed by any higher court, therefore, it was rightly filed before trial Court. I find that the learned trial court while deciding application under section 152, C.P.C. Has not re-interpreted the judgment recorded by the learned trial court while decreeing the suit. It just has completed the missing portion and rectify arithmetical mistake.
In the light of what has been discussed above, I see no merit in this writ petition, which his accordingly dismissed.