This civil revision is directed against the order of Civil Judge XII, Mardan dated 05.7.2011 by which he has dismissed application of petitioner/decree-holders filed under Section 152, CPC and the order dated 20.02.2012 of the learned Additional District Judge-I, Mardan, whereby he has affirmed the decision of executing Court.
2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that petitioner/decree-holders instituted a suit for declaration coupled with possession and permanent injunction to the effect that they are owners in possession of suit land measuring 01 kanal 05 marlas comprised in Khasra Nos.1861 to 1864, 2072, 2075 and 2077 in various khasra numbers as detailed in the plaint, which was decreed in their favour. There after, petitioners filed execution petition before the trial Court and during its pendency, they filed instant application for correction of certain numbers of khasra already mentioned in the plaint. The said application was dismissed, where against petitioners filed an appeal, but the appellate Court also dismissed the same; hence instant revision petition.
3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and have also perused the record.
4. Both the Courts below have held that the executing Court, being coram non-judice, has no power and authority to go beyond and behind the decree as the scope of Section 152, CPC is very narrow, which is only meant to correct arithmetical mistakes in the judgments and decrees and the said provision is not meant to re-open the case as the same would be rectified through an appeal or review, so much so when the application in question is aimed behind for adding certain khasra numbers which were not mentioned in the plaint.
5. So far as the legal position is concerned, there would hardly be any doubt about the proposition that in terms of Section 152, CPC, any error occurred in the decree on account of arithmetical or clerical error or accidental slip may be rectified by the Court. The principle behind the provision is that no party should suffer due to mistake of the Court and whatever is intended by the Court while passing the order or decree must be properly reflected therein, otherwise it would only be destructive to the principle of advancing the cause of justice. Arithmetical mistake is a mistake of calculation; a clerical mistake is a mistake in writing or typing whereas an error arising out of or occurring from accidental slip or omission is an error due to careless mistake on the part of the Court liable to be corrected. Thus in a case where the order may contain something which is not mentioned in the decree would be a case of unintentional omission or mistake. Such omission is attributable to the Court. No new arguments or re-arguments on merits are required for such rectification of mistake.
6. In this case, the correction sought in the application was in the nature of inserting/adding certain new khasra numbers in the decree of the Court, which were never mentioned in the plaint. The findings of the Courts below are very clear as the remedy for petitioners was not lying by resort to Section 152, CPC and they were required to have invoked powers of review of the trial Court or the powers of superior Courts in appeal or revision whatever may be available under the law.
7. Consequently, I do not find any error of jurisdiction or irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts below warranting interference and the petition in hand is hereby dismissed in limine.