SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---Leave to appeal was granted to the plaintiffs /decree-holders to examine whether the High Court of Baluchistan has justifiably by its judgment, dated 11-12-1988 rejected an application filed under section 152, C.P.C. Seeking correction of the judgment, dated 15-4-1975 and decree in his favour.
2. On the basis of a document dated 8-8-1953 the appellants sued the defendants (Civil Suit No.44 of 1967) for the possession of land including water rights, the land being located in Maura Babri, Tehsil Bori--- District Loralai.
3. In the main body of agreement the water rights which were being transferred were described as 24 hours. The particulars of land were not given but the indication of it was found as that owned by the vendor. Tehsildar attested the agreement on 23-11-1953. The Patwari specified the land on that deed the same day as No. Khasras 1 to 13, 53/14, 55/15, 57/16, 59/19, 20, 60/21, 22, 23.
4. In the body of the plaint this agreement deed was mentioned. Its copy too was filed. The suit or claim was founded on it. In the title of the plaint, however, the suit property was described as hereunder:----- "Suit for possession of Agricultural land and water contend at Khasra Girdawari Nos.10 to 13, 54/16, 55/16, 57/16, 59/19, 60/30/41, 23/24 measuring (64 Shab-e-Roz) Hours and situated in Mouza Babri, Tehsil and District Loralali."
5. The suit was contested and dismissed by the trial Court on 6-7-1971 and the appeal against it too was dismissed on 10-12-1971. However, the High Court by its judgment, dated 17-4-1975 accepted the second appeal and decreed the claim. In execution difficulty was experienced not only because part of the disputed property was wrongly described but also because revenue record had suffered changes on account of revision and division of Khasra numbers. An objection taken to the execution by the judgment- debtors on this score was rejected by the executing Court on 28- 12-1983. On appeal, the District Judge allowed the execution in respect of Khasra Nos.10/11/12/13, 57/16, 59/19, and 60 which were identified alongwith 24 `hours' of water rights. The appellate Court further held that Khasra Nos.4/16, 55/16, 23, 24, 30/49 did not exist and execution could not take place in respect of it. Hence, it allowed the objection of the judgment debtors so far as the latter was concerned. The appellants went in revision to the High Court and there they filed for the first time an application under section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking correction of the judgment and decree which application the High Court rejected as not maintainable.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and also getting their arguments supplemented by written notes, we find that one aspect of the case remained unattended throughout. It was that there was a principle of incorporation available which could rescue the plaintiffs. The whole claim was founded on a written agreement. That agreement had been mentioned in the plaint as the basis of title and the foundation of rights. The specification or description of the property was evidently picked up from it. A copy of the agreement had accompanied the plaint. The defendants/judgment-debtors had as much notice of that document as of the plaint. None pointed out the discrepancy between the two. The Court too did not detect it.
This Court has already held in Amir Abdullah Khan through legal heirs and others v. Col. Muhammad Attaullah Khan PLD 1990 SC 972 that where a claim is founded on a decd and the plaint incorporates by reference the contents of such deed, the incorrect specification or incorrect description of the particulars of the property can always be resolved and corrected by reference to the decd so incorporated and not beyond. The basic title deed is that accompanying document of which the parties had full notice. The contest is deemed to centre round that document as stood incorporated in the plaint. Unless the discrepancy in the two is detected by the parties to the contest or by the Court and remains unattended, correction of the incorporating document to bring it in conformity with the incorporated document cannot be refused. Whatever the stage when the discrepancy is detected correction of it can take place by resort to section 152, C.P.C.
7. This appeal is, therefore, allowed. The judgment of the High Court refusing amendment and dismissing revision petition is set aside. The executing Court shall permit correction of the decree only to the extent of bringing it in conformity with the title deed and thereafter proceed with execution of it. No order is made as to costs.