ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J.---This appeal has been filed challenging the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in Chambers on 5-8-1993 whereby the two applications being C.M.A. Nos.1185 and 1228 of 1993 moved by the present appellant were dismissed.
2. Briefly the facts for the purposes of this appeal are that the present respondents had filed a suit being Suit No. 1090 of 1988 seeking the relief of rendition of accounts, injunction, removal of the present Moutawalli and appointment of a new Moutawalli. The suit proceeded ex parte and initially a preliminarily decree was passed on 30-5-1989 whereby the suit of the respondent was decreed for rendition of accounts and Official Assignee was appointed as Commissioner to take accounts and determine the liability. By the said preliminary decree it was ordered that an order for removal or otherwise of defendant No.1 as Moutawalli would be passed. Subsequently, an order was passed on 11-2-1990 after the report of the Official Assignee was received. By this order it was declared that defendant No.1 is liable to pay an amount of Rs.98,74,500 as well as cost of Rs.5,000 as Receiver's fee to the newly appointed Moutawalli. By the same order the defendant No. l was removed from the office of Moutawalli and the plaintiff No.1 was appointed as new Moutawalli. On the same day a final decree was also passed in above terms. However, in the final decree it has been ordered that defendant No. l do pay the abovesaid amount to the plaintiff No.1, the newly-appointed Moutawalli.
The present appellant being aggrieved from the said orders, first moved an application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. Praying for setting aside ex parte decree: This application was dismissed. An application for review was also moved which was dismissed. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred before a Division Bench of this Court which was also rejected. Thereafter, the appellant filed a Civil Petition for leave to appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and after dismissal of the said petition he again moved an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. For setting aside of the decree on the ground that the same was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation and without notice. This application was also dismissed. Ultimately, the present appellant moved these two civil miscellaneous applications before the learned Single Judge in execution Application No. l of 1991 praying that the decree be amended by deleting the words "due pay" and the same to be substituted by declaratory terms as mentioned in order dated 11-2-1990. The trial Court after hearing these two applications on merit was pleased to reject the said applications. Being aggrieved, appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. We have heard Mr. Shafqat Hussain learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M G Dastagir, learned counsel for the respondents.
4. The preliminary question that arose while hearing this appeal is as to whether the application under section 152, C.P.C. Would be competent. A plain reading of the said application would show that this application was moved in Execution No. 1 of 1991 seeking amendment of the decree passed in the suit. On the face of it, therefore, this application would not be maintainable as the executing Court has no jurisdiction to order any correction in the decree passed in a civil suit by a learned Single Judge. The provisions of section 152, C.P.C. Reads as under:-- "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 word "Court" as used in the section would mean the Court which has passed the decree and not the Court which is required to execute the said decree. Even on this score alone the very application under section 152, C.P.C. Would not be maintainable and had to be rejected by the executing Court. Consequently, the other application under section 151, C.P.C. Also would fail.
5. In view of the above discussion and the contents of the impugned order, We find no reason to interfere with the said orders. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed with no order as to cost.