' Evidenced through Mutation No,65 attested on 23-10-1971 Muhammad Yaqoob petitioner purchased the landed property comprising an area of 39 Kanals and 7 Marlas of land situated in Khewat No,42, Khatauni No,121. Chak No,14/8-R, District Khanewal. On the basis of their superior pre- emptive right the respondents/plaintiffs filed their suit to obtain a decree for possession through pre-emption. They based their better qualification by making the averment in para. 5 of the plaint as under:--- {{URDU TEXT}} ' The suit was decreed on 10-5-1986. The appeal preferred by Muhammad Yaqoob petitioner/vendee was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 9-9-1989. Before that learned Court an application for permission to produce the additional evidence was filed which was not disposed of. Regular Second Appeal No,70 of 1989 was preferred by Muhammad Yaqoob appellant/petitioner against the pre-emptors. The same was resisted by the preemptors. My learned brother Mian Saeed-ur-Rehman Farrukh, J. (as he then was) held that the judgment of the first Appellate Court was liable to be set aside as the application moved for additional evidence was not decided. Consequently the appeal was accepted and the matter was sent back to the learned Appellate Court for its decision afresh after disposal of the application for permission to produce the additional evidence.
2. In para. 1 of the judgment, dated 2-3-1993 of this Court it is narrated that "in the plaint the grounds taken to support the plea of superior right of preemption were (i) co-sharers in the Khewat; (ii) collateralship, and (iii) owners in the estate".
3. Feeling aggrieved of the remand order to the extent of the inclusion of the aforesaid qualification of the pre-emptors being "owners in the estate" and expressing that his impression was that the relevant issue of superior pre-emptive right was kept open, the petitioner filed an application for the review of the judgment dated 2-3-1993 to get deleted the aforesaid qualification. However, the said Revenue Application No,15/C of 1995 in Regular Second Appeal No,70 of 1989 was dismissed as withdrawn on 13-4-1994.
4. Afterwards Muhammad Yaqoob petitioner/vendee filed this application under sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the correction of the narration part of the aforesaid judgment being an accidental slip/clerical mistake to bring it in conformity with the ultimate order of remand passed by this Court.
5. The pre-admission notice was sent to the respondents. The first question to be determined is about the maintainability of this petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Muhammad Jalat Khan and another v. Ghulam Sarwar represented by legal heirs and 3 others 1986 CLC 552 (Peshawar) and Sarwar Khan v. Meer Khan and 10 others 1980 CLC 110 SC (AJ&K) and argued that the accidental omission or clerical mistake can be corrected at any time without the attraction of the objection as to limitation period and that the inclusion of the aforesaid qualification of "owners in the estate" having been entered through mistake the narration part of the judgment can be brought in conformity with the remand order especially when the inherent powers of this Court can be invoked. On the contrary learned counsel for the respondents/pre-emptors relied upon Haji Ishtiaq Ahmad and 2 others v.
Bakhshaya and 7 others 1976 SCMR 420 and argued that section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not authorise the Court to supplement its judgments, decrees or orders by directions requiring application of mind and having effect of taking away rights accrued to any party, he also referred to Master Ghulam Rasool v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and another PLD 1982 Lah. 303 and Nizam Din and 13 others v. Chaudhry Muhammad Saeed and 7 others 1987 CLC 1682 in support of this assertion and argued that section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not authorise the Court in this respect. He added that section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as sections 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not attracted to the instant matter. It would be convenient to reproduce sections 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure 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 or its own motion or on the application of any of the parties."
153. General power to amend.---The Court may at any time, and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it may think fit, amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit; and all necessary amendments shall be made for the purpose of determining the real question or issue raised by or depending on such proceeding."
In my view, the star ruling published as 1976 SCMR 420 (supra) is applicable to the instant matter Which has also been relied in the aforesaid ruling published as 1987 CLC 1682. The main assertion of the petitioner/vendee is that in the narration portion, the inclusion of the aforesaid qualification of being owners in he estate is a clerical mistake. However, section 152 of the Code of Civil procedure does not help him because this section permits correction of lyrical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising by accidental slip or omissions. 'o amendment of the proposed type is permissible under section 153 of the ode of Civil Procedure. If the application for proposed amendment is held to maintainable then there may not be administrative chaos in the judicial Id.
7. Consequently, relying upon the aforesaid case-law referred to by the learned counsel for the pre-emptors/respondents, I hold that this application is maintainable and with my aforesaid observations the same is dismissed in ne.
' The matter before the learned lower Appellate Court is fairly old one !Very effort shall be made to dispose of the same within a period of four