' MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, J.---Through this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 25-10-2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge/respondent No,10, whereby the application for correction of decree was dismissed and revision petition filed by the petitioners against the said order was also dismissed by the learned Revisional Court/respondent No,11 vide order dated 27-3-2006.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No,1 purchased 25/36 share of land measuring 04-K falling in Khasra Nos.2083/589 and 2084/589 situated in Village Kandhanwala, Tehsil and District Mandi Bahauddin pertaining to Jamabandi for the year 1961-1962 from respondents Nos.2, 8 and 9 and predecessor in interest of respondents Nos.3 to 7. This land was decreed on 30-10-1964 in favour of the respondent No,1 on the consenting statement filed by the respondents in a suit filed by respondent No, 1 . On the basis of this decree, the name of the Respondent No,1 was incorporated in the Revenue Record, however, it is added that correct Khasra Nos. 2083/589 and 2084/589 instead of 4083/589 and 4084/589 have been recorded in the Revenue Record. The petitioners purchased only 02-K of land falling in Khasra Nos.20$3/ 89 and 2084/589 from respondent No,1 vide Mutations Nos.4453 and 4454 dated 23-11-1972 and the names of the present petitioners were incorporated in the Jamabandi for the year 1973-1974 up to 1988- 1989. The respondents Nos.2 to 9 filed an application for the review of the Mutations Nos.4453 and 4454 before the District Collector Mandi Bahauddin taking the benefit of wrong Khasra Numbers mentioned in the decree sheet. To avoid such situation, the present petitioners filed an application under sections 151/152, C.P.C. For the correction of the decree. This application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 25-10-2004 and the revision petition filed by the present petitioners was also dismissed on 27-3-2006. It is important to mention here that the Revenue Authority vide his order dated 22-11-1993, accepted the review petition of the respondents and directed the Collector to review the mutations sanctioned in favour of the present petitioners..
The said Qrders of the respondents Nos.10 and 11 have been challenged through this writ petition.
3,. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that due to typographical mistake, Khasra Nos.4083/589 and 4084/589 have been mentioned in the plaint as well as in the decree sheet. It was not disputed by the original owner of the land at the time of filing the consenting written statement. It is added that due to the Urdu figures 2 and 4 this typographical error occurred, otherwise the respondents were owners of land bearing Khasra Nos.2083/589 and 2084/589. The case was heard. On 11-10-2011 when the learned counsel for the respondents was directed to produce the evidence about Khasra Nos. 4083/589 and 4084/589. The time was granted for 24-10-201'1, even on the subsequent dates i,e, 20-1-2012 and today the learned counsel has failed to produce the said Jamabandi which relates to Khasra Nos.4083/589 and 4084/589, meaning thereby, that there was/is no Khasra Number in the ownership of the respondents but the respondents were owner of Khasra Nos.2083/589 and 2084/589 and this confusion has arisen due to the Urdu lettering/figure 2 and 4 which were inadvertently mentioned by the counsel for the plaintiff and then the, same found its way into the decree sheet. Due to this confusion, the respondent has tried to get the undue benefit but this fraud cannot be allowed to perpetuate at the expense of the Court. Although, it was the duty of the Court at the time of passing the decree to not only consider, the plaint but also to verify the Khasra Numbers from the revenue record placed on record at the time of filing of the suit. Even otherwise, it is not permissible by any standard of ethics that the respondents be allowed to, deprive of the present petitioners of their rights due to mistake, occasioned by the plaintiff at , the time of filing of the suit but it is contributory and this can be allowed at any-stage if otherwise is not proved. Reliance is placed on (PLD 1973 Lahore 637)
Rashida Begum and another v. Ghulam Farid Shah and another where it has been held that the error in decree occurred due to ' error in pleadings, Court has the power to amend the decree without amendment of pleadings. In another judged reported as (1979 SCM R 159) Muhammad Munawar v. Ch. Khurshid Alam. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that accidental errors can be corrected under section 152 and this can be carried out by the learned. Trial Court. In another case reported as 1979 SCM R 159 Muhammad Munawar v. Ch. Khurshid Alam. The Hon'ble Supreme Court; has held that even at the stage of execution, accidental errors can be corrected and even Appellate Court can competently correct such error being apparent on the face of record. In another judgment (2000 SCM R 1035) Muhammad Tufail and 3 others v. Ghulam Farid and 4 others.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court under sections 151, 152 and 153, C.P.C., held, clerical errors and amendments/ corrections in plaint after pronouncement of judgment was permissible.
4. Keeping in view the law laid down by this Court as well Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, the correction required in the decree sheet is declared as a bona fide mistake and for the sake of substantial justice, this petition is allowed and the orders of the respondents Nos. 10 and 11 dated 23-10-2004 and 27-3-2006 respectively are set aside. Consequently, the application filed by the present petitioners is allowed. Learned Trial Court is directed to make necessary corrections/ amendments in the decree sheet. No order as to costs.
5. To dispense the complete justice, it is appropriate that the order dated 22-11-1993 passed by the District Collector whereby he allowed the review directed the Sub-divisional Collector to review the mutations, be hereby set aside.
Constitutional .