MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J.---This petition has arisen out of a preemption suit filed by respondent No.1, Mst. Anwar Mai, against the petitioners, Peer Bakhsh and others. The suit was decreed by the Civil Judge, Kot Addu, Distict Muzaffargarh. After the finalization of the judgment and decree, in the normal course, execution of the decree was sought by the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as the decree-holder).
2. During the execution proceedings, it occurred to the decree-holder that numbers of some rectangles and the Killas involved in the suit, had been wrongly described in the plaint as well as the decree-sheet due to clerical error. She, therefore, made two applications--one for the correction of the error appearing in the plaint and the other for the rectification of same mistake which had crept in the decree-sheet. Her prayer was allowed by the executing Court.
Order made in this regard was challenged by means of a revision petition but that was dismissed by an Additional District Judge. The petitioners then invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, but without success. Now, they seek leave to appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge of the said Bench, by which the writ petition was dismissed.
3. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned executing 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 allow the correction of the plaint.
4. A similar question came up before this Court in the case reported as Nazir Ahmad and 6 others v.
Ghulam Mustafa (1995 SCM R 163). That 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 allowed 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 well. 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 challenged 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 plaintiff (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 (decree-holder) herself, which was allowed by the learned executing Court while permitthag 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.
7. Resultantly, the petition for leave is dismissed.