Petitioners' land was acquired by Government for construction of Headquarter Offices/residences vide award dated 10-12-1983. Being not content with the amount of compensation fixed by the Collector, Land Acquisition the petitioners/land owners filed objection petition, which was referred to the learned Referee Court for determination. The objection petition was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 21-7-1986 and the amount of compensation of the acquired land was enhanced. Feeling aggrieved, the Land Acquisition Collector/D.C. Filed appeal before this Court which was dismissed vide judgment/decree dated 18-5-1993.
2. It was on 14-5-1994 that petitioners filed an application under section 152, C.P.C., for amendment of decree and claimed that they should be awarded 6% interest on the amount of compensation awarded to them. The said application was however, dismissed, vide order dated 17-10-1995. Being not content with the said order the petitioners have filed revision petition in hand.
3. Mr. Hidayatullah Khan the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the learned District Judge/Referee Court has failed to appreciate that the petitioners were entitled to 6% interest over the amount of compensation. Non-mentioning/non-grant of the interest was in fact omission on the part of the Court which can be rectified under section 152, C.P.C.
6. The learned counsel while explaining the delay in filing the application placed reliance on PLD 1992 SC 472 and stated that the Court could correct its mistake at any time.
7. On the other hand Mr.Tariq Javed, Dy. A.-G. Argued that the application filed by the petitioners was hopelessly barred by time, hence the learned District Judge had rightly dismissed the same.
Reliance in this regard was placed on PLD 1961 Lahore 579.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. It is admitted position that the petitioners had moved an application under section 152, C.P.C. For the correction of the decree passed in their favour. An application under section 152, C.P.C. Can be moved for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistake in the judgment, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission at any time. The question that arises here is as to whether there was any omission on the part of the learned Referee Court for not awarding interest, answer to this question is in negative. The perusal of the judgment/decree passed by the learned Referee Judge dated 21-7-1986 shows that the amount of compensation was almost doubled and the petitioners were held entitled to 15% compulsory acquisition charges, They were however, not granted the interest. The Land Acquisition Collector/D.C. Being not satisfied with the judgment/decree passed by the Referee Court filed before this Court, the appeal was duly contested by the petitioners. Neither any appeal against the judgment/decree dated 21-7-1986 for non-grant of interest was filed nor any cross-objection on the subject was preferred. A Division Bench of this Court after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 18-5-1993. No further appeal or revision was moved before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan. Application under section 152, C.P.C. Was also tiled on 14-5-1994 i,e, almost one year after the appeal had been dismissed by this Court. No doubt any Court can at any stage correct the clerical or c arithmetical mistake in its judgment under section 152, C.P.C. But non-grant of interest would not come under the purview of 'omission'. The interest was cautiously and deliberately not granted either by the Referee Judge or by D this Court. As per subsection (2) of section 34 if a decree is silent with respect to payment of interest, the Court would be deemed to have refused such interest. The petitioners cannot be given the claimed interest at this belated stage nor the judgment/decree for grant of interest could be amended under section 152, C.P.C. I have not been able to find out any irregularity or material illegality in the impugned judgment/order warranting ,interference by this Court. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs.