Ch. Muhammad Masood Jahangir , J:- In concision, facts of the case were that Muhammad Iqbal, father of present petitioners instituted Civil Suit against Mehmood Hassan, predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1 to 5 and others, who in response also instituted rival Civil Suit against Muhammad Mansha as well as Muhammad Iqbal, which were conjunctively tried and finally suit of petitioners was dismissed and that of Mehmood Hassan was decreed by the learned Civil Court on 25th September , 1998. Not only Appeals of Muhammad Iqbal rather his Civil Revision along with RSA failed and for satisfaction of decree granted to Mehmood Hassan, Execution Petition was preferred. During its pendency , on behalf of the decree holder application u/ss 151, 152 of the Code, 1908 was preferred for correction of judgment and decree alleging therein that specific issue No.17 was answered in affirmative, whereby decree holder was entitled to recover possession as well, but relief to this effect could not be incorporated in the relief clause of the judgment and the decree, which was resisted by the petitioners/judgment debtors, who also filed Objection Petition to resist the satisfaction of the decree, but the application of the decree holders was allowed resulting into correc tion of judgment and decree as prayed for, whereas learned Executing Court dismissed the Objection Petition, compelling the petitioners to prefer Appeals before the learned District Court, but having failed, petition in hand as well as connected C.R No.67709/ 2017 was filed on their part. As parties to both the lis as well as subject matter is common, hence for all intents and purposes, it will be appropriate to decide the same jointly through this single judgment, however , for reference, source point will be petition in hand.
2. During their deliberation, M/s Ch. Muhammad Anwar Bhindar and Faiz Sagheer Ahmad, Advocates for the petitioners being fair enough admitted that during trial, a specific issue with regard to restoration of possession was settled and finally was answered affirmatively in favour of decree holder , which still holds the field, however their emphasis that the said decision having not been made part of the judgment as well as decree lost its efficacy and force with the efflux of time, which subsequently could not be corrected was not well founded. In law, judgment is decision of the Court to determine rights and liabilities of parties usually pronounced after the appreciation of material available on file and cannot be read in isolation, whereas decree is shad ow of the judgment or its formal expression and translated into executable form in agreement as well as conformity with the judgment. It is sole duty of the Court to draw the judgment as well as the decree to clearly specify the reliefs granted to the parties concerned, so as to make it capable of being realized. Once it was admitted, which otherwise also found support from the available record that specific issue for particular relief claimed for was unequivocally and ringingly decided by the Court of ultimate jurisdiction as well as maintained up to the level of this Court, then how for some omission or accidental slip on the part of the Court, it could be debarred to rectify the same. It is well established principle that a litigant cannot be bound to suffer for any wrong or omission of the Court. The moment elision was apprised through application, the Court realizing result of accidental slip was perfect to rectify the wrong. The question whether the omission in the decree as well as judgment to expressly contain direction to deliver possession could be supplemented and amended in exercise of the authority/power under Section 152 of the Code 1908, it would be beneficial to reproduce the said provision hereunder:- "S.152-----Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders.---Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties."
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that only clerical or arithmetical mistake, in judgment and decree or order could be corrected and that too within limited time, is not well founded. The Court, which passed the judgment and decree as per mandate of provision ibid could also correct accidental slip or omission as prayed for. The expressions "accidental slip" or "omission" as used in Section 152 mean "to leave out or failure to mention something un-intentionally". Thus, in such a situation, the relief so granted earlier in the appropriate proceedings, if was omitted to be added in the relief clause of the judgment followed by the decree can be corrected at any time.
See Syed Saadi Jafri Zainzabi Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and Assistant Commissioner (PLD 1992 SC 472) and its para 9 being relevant is reproduced hereunder:- "The Court has jurisdiction to correct the clerical or arithmetical mistake or errors caused due to accidental slip or omission in a judgment, decree or order . Depending on facts, it confers a wide direction on the Court to correct, (i) clerical or arithmetical mistake, (i) errors caused due to accidental slip or omission in the judgment, decree or order .
Such power can be exercised at any time. Where the Court is bound to grant relief even without it being sought by a party and if unintentionaly or inadvertently the Court does not grant such relief, it would be justified at any time to correct such accidental omission or error by exercising power under Section 152."
Thus, learned Court was perfect to overcome its unintentional omissions and the decree-holder could not be bound to suf fer thereby for no fault on his part.
3. Ch. Muhammad Anwar Bhinder , learned counsel for the petitioners at the fag end of his argument, finally while relying upon a judgment passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court reported as Iftikhar Ahmad and 7 other Vs. Habib Bank Limited, Karachi and another (1993 CLC 101) emphasized that the decree granted by learned Trial Court was finally maintained by this Court and as per rule of merger application under Sections 151 read with 152 of the Code, 1908 could only be enterta ined by this Court, but the Court below erred in law by entertaining and granting such application, was not well founded. I have minutely gone through the referred judgment, which arose out of a Banking Case and although the application for correction of decree was directly entertained by this Court as per afore-referred rule, but it was not prohibited that such like application was not maintainable before the Court, which originally decided the lis and omission as alleged was made in spite of deciding the issue in the affirmative, whereas the august Supreme Court in the judgment reported as Joydeb Agarwala Vs. Baitulmal Karkhana Ltd (PLD 1965 Supreme Court 37) much prior to the aforenoted judgment of this Court had already concluded that while deciding application for correction of decree rule of merger would not apply and the Court, which originally committed the mistake was competent to modify/correct the same and for ready reference the relevant extract of the said citation is reproduced hereunder:- Certain contentions raised by Mr. T.H. Khan may be very briefly disposed of. He contended that the Trial Court lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the decree because it had become final through being upheld in appeal in the High Court and not having been appealed against further , and secondly , that only the High Court could alter the decree which had become merged in the decree of the High Court. The mere fact of the decree having become immune to further appeal by the dismissal of the appeal in the High Court and the lack of further appeal does not render the decree a decree of any other Court except that of first instance. No modification was made in the decree by the High Court, and the argument of merger is rendered of no weight by the consideration that in fact the High Court rejected the appeal.
This conclusion was again endorsed by the same Court in the judgment reported as Muhammad Munawar Vs. Ch. Khurshid Alam (PLJ 1980 Supreme Court 63). In this case, one Ch. Khurshid Alam preferred Eviction Petition against Muhammad Munawar , which was granted by learned Rent Tribunal, the appeal of the latter filed before District Court as well as RSA in this Court failed. Pursuant thereto the former approached the learned Executing Court for its satisfaction, when it was apprised that detail of the subject property was wrongly mentioned in the eviction Order , compelling its beneficiary to file application u/s 152 of the Code ibid for its correction, when besides other the objection of merger was also pressed by the judgment debtor and finally the apex Court, while dealing therewith in para 4 concluded as under:- The learned counsel, however , argued that after the order of the learned Rent Controler was upheld by the learned Additional District Judge, the former order would cease to exist, as it must be held to have merged in the order passed by the latter . He, therefore, contended that the learned Rent Controller 's jurisdiction ceased to carry out the required correction in his said order . We are afraid, there is no force in this contention especialy under the learned counsel conceded that the learned Additio nal District Judge could have competent ly carried out the said correction himself, and so the argument raised by him would seem to be only technical.
To me after the introduction of Section 42 in the Civil Procedure Code, even the Executing Court was empowered to correct the decrees. In arriving at this view, I am fortified by the dicta laid down by the apex Court in the judgment reported as Nazir Ahmad and 6 others Vs. Ghulam Mustafa (1995 SCMR 163) as well as Peer Baksh and others Vs. Mst. Anwar Mai and others (1996 SCMR 875) and for ready reference the conclusion drawn by the said Court in the last case is given below:-
3. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Execu ting Court had no jurisdiction to correct the clerical error in the plaint. He was not much worried about the correction of mistake in the decree sheet.
His plea was that after the finalization of the judgment and decree, the Executing Court had no jurisdiction to alow the correction of the plaint.
4. A similar question came up before this Court in the case reported as Nazir Ahmad and 6 others Vs. Ghulam Mustafa (1995 SCMR 163). The case also related to a pre-emption matter . At the stage of execution of the decree, passed in the pre-emption suit, correction of particulars of the land involved was sought and the same was alowed by the learned Executing Court. While so doing, the learned Executing Court had directed the plaintiff (decree- holder) to make the necessary correction in the plaint as wel. When order made in the said case, was assailed before this Court, it was ruled by a learned Bench comprising Mr. Justice Ajmal Mian and Mr. Justice Muhammad Rafique Tarar (as he then was) that no infirmity or legal flaw in the order of the High Court, sought to be chalenged by means of an appeal, had been pointed out so as to warrant interference by this Court. The petition for leave to appeal was, therefore, dismissed.
5. The case before us stands on a better footing as compared to the case of Nazir Ahmad and 6 others, inasmuch as, in the case under report, there was no application for amendment of plaint and yet the learned executing Court had directed the plaintif f (decree-holder) to amend the plaint so as to do away with the same error which had been pointed out in the decree-sheet and was desired to be corrected. As against this, in the case in hand, there was an application by the plaintif f (decree-holder) herself, which was allowed by the learned executing Court while permitting correction of the decree-sheet, so as to do away with the clerical error .
6. Respectfully relying on the opinion expressed in the case of Nazir Ahmad and 6 others, we find nothing wrong with the order of the learned Bench of the Lahore High Court and, therefore, leave is refused to the petitioners to appeal against the said order .
By the correction so made only an omis sion has been rectified and not any new relief has been granted. Even otherwise the jurisdiction is vested to the Courts to redress their miseries and not to multiply the same, moreover , each case has to be decided keeping in view its own facts and circumstances..
4. The objection petition before the learned Executing Court was made by the petitioner that it cannot satisfy the declaratory decree, but the moment, decree was amended, it lost its force, hence, nothing wrong was committed in its dismissal.
5. Consequent upon the discussion made hereinabove, both the Civil Revisions are hereby dismissed.