1. KHALID PAUL KHWAJA, J.-On 22.1.1973, through sale mutation No. 141, Muhammad Shall vendor sold 1/3 share of land in a joint holding which came to 51 kanals 5 marlas, in favour of his tenant Muhammad Ali respondent for a price of Rs. 36,000/-. Muhammad Sharif petitioner, the brother of the vendor, preempted the said sale. The suit was contested and on the divergent pleading of the parties issues were framed. The parties adduced their evidence and made their submissions.
2. Finally, on 8.5.1978, the learned trial court dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal. The learned Addl. District Judge, who was seized of the appeal, partly accepted the same as a result of which decree on the basis of pre-emption was granted to the petitioner to the extent of 2/3 share of the suit land. However, his suit with regard to the remaining 1/3 of the said land was dismissed. Against this judgment and decree of the learned Addl. District Judge dated 27.6.1979 both the parties went in appeal before High Court but their appeals were dismissed in limine on 18.2.1981. They then went to the Supreme Court but leave to appeal was not granted to them and their petitions were dismissed on 23.5.1988. Subsequently during the execution proceedings the petitioner made an application before the learned Addl: District Judge (successor-in-office of the learned Judge who partly decreed the suit) for the review and correction of the decree and the 'relief clause' of the judgment dated 27.6.1969, but the said application was dismissed vide order dated 10.4.1989. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has come up in revision.
2. I have heard the parties, learned counsel and have also gone through the record.
3. Perusal of the plaint shows that the petitioner had instituted a suit for the possession of the following land on the basis of pre-emption: Khatoni No. 15 K M Khasra No. 22 measuring (5-2)
3. " " 23 (3-6)
4. 24 I (7-18) h il 25 I (8-0)
5. M ii 26 ii (8-0) ii II 47 n (8-0) il It 43 ll (8-0) ii il 46 n (8-0), il li 48 il (8-2) ti ii 162 It (8-0) ii I 229 (8-0)
6. I II 233 ii (8-0) ii II 234 ii (8-0)
7. 230 ii (4-13)
8. Khatoni No. I6 K M Khasra No. 159 measuring (3-7) " 160 n (4-0) 161 (8-0) 163 M (8-0) 216 II * (8-0) " ' 227 1 (4-7) " 228 ft (8-0) " 215 ii II (8-0) ii Total: 153-15)
4. The learned Addl. District Judge granted pre-emption decree to the petitioner for the possession of about 34 kanals of the suit land in Khasra Numbers 22 to 26, 42, 43, 46, 48, 162, 229, 233, 234 & 230 being 2/3 of the share transferred through sale mutation No. 141 dated 22.1.1973. He dismissed the petitioner's remaining suit and allowed the respondent to retain l/3rd of the suit land measuring about 17 kanals in the following Khasra Nos: K M 159 (3 - 7)
9. 160 (4 - 0)
10. 161 (8 - 0)
11. 163 (8 - 0)
12. 216 (8 - 0)
13. 227 (4 - 7)
14. 228 (8 - 0)
15. 215 (8 - 0)
16. Total: 51 -14
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the following paragraph of the judgment of the learned Addl.District Judge be deleted: " In view of my findings of the above issue I accept this appeal set aside the judgment and decree of learned trial court and pass decree for possession by pre-emption of the share sold by Muhammad Shafi from Khasra No.22to 26, 42,43,46,48,162,229,234 and 220 of the suit land for sum of Rs.24000/- in favour of the appellant against the respondent whereas this suit with regard to the share sold out of Khasra No. 159,160,161,163, 216, 227, 228 and 215 stands dismissed. The appellant to deposit the pre-emption money after deducting the . Amount to 1/5 if already deposited by him on or before 31.7.79 failing which his suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed in toto with costs."
17. He pleaded that the following paragraph may be inserted in place of the above paragraph: "In view of my findings of the above issue I accept this appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial court and pass the decree for possession by pre-emption of the share sold by Muhammad Shafi to the extent of 2/3 (share) from Khasra numbers 159,160,161, 163, 216, 227, 228 and 215 of the suit land for a sum of Rs. 24,000/- in favour of the appellant against the respondent whereas this suit with regard to the share sold out to the extent of 1/3 (share) out of the said land bearing Khasra Nos. 159, 160, 161, 163, 216, 227, 228 and 215 measuring 17 kanals one maria stands dismissed. The appellant to deposit the pre-emption money after deducting the amount to 1/5 if already deposited by him on or before 31.7.1979 failing which his suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed in toto with costs."
18. The petitioner's contention is that the decree and the 'relief clause' are not in consonance with the reasons and conclusions arrived at in the body of judgment.
19. When asked as to under what provision of law he was requesting the requisite correction he stated that the prayer was being made under Section 152 CPC.
20. Section 152 CPC runs as follows: "152. Amendments 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."
6. It would be abundantly clear from the proposed amendment/correction that it is not a case of clerical or arithmetical mistake. Nor does it appear .To be a case of an error arising from accidental slip or omission. The judgment and decree passed by the learned AddL.District Judge are very clear and un-ambiguous. It cannot be said, nor does it lie within my powers under section 152 CPC to declare, that the relief granted in the impugned judgment and decree was not in consonance with the reasons and conclusions arrived at in the body of the judgment. The learned AddL.District Judge had made a conscious order which was subjected to scrutiny by the High Court as well as the Supreme Court and was found to be unexceptionable. The petitioner never assailed the said judgment and decree before the said courts on the plea raised by him in the present application.
21. No. Alteration, modification or amendment of such an order could be made under the cover of Section 152 CPC. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Haji Ishtiaq Ahmad and two others Vs. Bakhshava and seven others (1976 S.C.M.R. 420) that Section 152 CPC permits only the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments and decrees etc, or errors arising from any accidental slip or omission, but does not authorise the court to supplement its judgments or orders by directions which require application of mind and have the effect of taking away rights which may have otherwise accrued to one party or the other. I have no doubt in my mind that the acceptance of the petitioner's application would require application of mind and amount to supplementing the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge which is not permissible under the law. It has also been held in Shah Feroz Vs. Said Alam and others (PLD 1954 Peshawar 65) that a court under section 152 CPC could only correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission, which are apparent on the face of the record. It was further laid down that the court has no jurisdiction to correct any order or decree on any other ground even if it is of the opinion that the said order or decree was passed under an erroneous impression as to the fact of the case. This principle was reiterated in Fa/.Al Din Vs. Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands! And 2 others (1987 C.L.C.1053 (Lahore). In view of these judicial pronouncements, which I respectfully follow, I am of the opinion that the relief prayed for by the petitioner in his application under section 152 CPC could not be granted to him. His application was rightly dismissed by the learned court below. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and therefore, the revision petition is dismissed with costs.