' This order will also dispose of Civil Miscellaneous Nos.771/C of 2001, 772,/C of 2001, 773/C of 2001 and 774/C of 2001 in Civil Revisions Nos.256, 257, 258 and 259 of 1995. These applications arise out of the following circumstances.
2. The predecessors-in-interest of the applicants filed separate suits against the revision petitioners for possession of different parcels of land. Their case was that old Khasra Number 539/1 and present Khasra number 347 measuring 2 Kanals, 8 Marlas was confirmed in their favour on R.L.II, Khata No,8 (urban) vide order, dated 26-11-1971 but in their absence, the revision petitioners had encroached upon the said parcels of land and had constructed houses. It was further averred that on the application made to the Tehsildar (Settlement) the demarcation was done on 24-1- 1976 and it was found that the revision petitioners had encroached upon the land of the applicants in new Khasra No,347.
3. The suits were contested. The case of the defendent in the suit was that the Khasra number of the disputed land was 538 while land in Khasra number 539 was Ghair Mumkin Kiln and, was therefore, not allotable. The suits were tried and vide separate judgments and decrees dated 21-11- 1991 these were dismissed. The applicants filed separate appeals which were allowed vide consolidated judgment dated 1-12-1994 of the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot. The aforesaid revision petitions were directed against the judgment and decrees of the learned Additional District Judge by the defendants in the suit.
4. The aforesaid civil revisions were disposed of vide separate judgments dated 8-6-2001 with the direction that the learned Additional District Judge shall appoint a Local Commissioner to demarcate Khasra numbers 538 and 539 with special reference to field-book and shall also determine as to whether the houses of the revision petitioners had been constructed on the land forming subject-matter of Khasra numbers afore-noted. Pursuant to the said order, Tehsildar, Sialkot was appointed as a Local Commissioner by the learned Additional District Judge with a direction to demarcate Khasra Numbers 538 and 539. He demarcated the aforesaid Khasra numbers, According to his report the aforesaid Khasra numbers were not situated in Mohallah Pakpura. Accordingly, the appeals of the applicants-respondents were dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 2-11-2001 of the learned First Appellate Court against which the applicants have filed review petitions which are pending. Through these applications, correction of a clerical mistake is sought in the judgments aforesaid inasmuch as that instead of Khasra Numbers 538 and 539, Khasra Number 347 (new) is sought to be substituted.
5. The learned counsel for the applicants-respondents submits that the case of the applicants, out of which the aforesaid revision petitions had arisen was that the houses in dispute were constructed on old Khasra No,539/1 of which new Khasra number was 347 and in the decree- sheets of both the Courts the old and the new Khasra numbers were mentioned. He invited my attention to the memo. Of revision petition according to which the corresponding new Khasra number of the old Khasra Number 539/1 was 347. The grievance of the learned counsel is that Khasra Numbers 538 and 539 (new) were demarcated with which none of the parties has any concern. The dispute in the suits related to the land in Khasra Number 347 (new) which was required to be demarcated to give effect to the judgments of this Court in the aforesaid revision petitions.
6. Malik Waqar Salim, Advocate on the other hand, opposes these applications. He submits that the judgment of this Court having been implemented and the appeals of the applicants having been dismissed after remand by this Court these miscellaneous applications are not competent. He further submits that Review Petitions Nos.56/C of 2001, 57/C of 2001, 58/C of 2001 and 59/C of 2001 of the applicants having earlier been dismissed on 15-10-2001, these applications are not maintainable.
7. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been considered. While the case of the applicants has been that the revision petitioners had encroached upon the lam] of old Khasra Number 539/1, new Khasra Number 347, the case of the revision petitioners was that their houses were situated in Khasra Number 538 and not 539. It was rather averred that allotment of Khasra Number 539 in favour of the applicant's predecessors was invalid. The learned First Appellate Court while allOwing the appeals of the applicants in the first round of litigation relied on the demarcation report of the revenue officials according to which the houses of the revision petitioners were situated on Khasra Number 347 (new). Essentially, the dispute between the parties was whether on old Khasra Number 539/1 new Khasra Number 347 the revision petitioners had made encroachment or their houses were situated on any other Khasra number and the Local Commissioner was 'directed to be appointed by this Court to find out the location of houses of the revision petitioners. While specifying the old Khasra numbers their new Khasra numbers were not indicated. It was only an accidental slip. This Court could not intend demarcation of the Khasra numbers which were not in dispute in the suit. In fact, demarcation of Khasra Number 539/1 (old)/347 (new) was required to be carried out to give effect to the aforesaid judgments of this Court. It appears that the learned Additional District Judge, while directing demarcation of Khasra Numbers 538 and 539, did not indicate the corresponding new Khasra numbers with the result that new Khasra Numbers 538 and 539 were demarcated with which the parties are not concerned.
This has occasioned miscarriage of justice. It may also be noted that in the decrees of the learned two Courts the old (539/1) as well as new (347) Khasra numbers were clearly given.
8. The contentions of the leaned counsel for the revision petitioners have duly been considered.
Even if the judgments in the aforesaid revision petitions were implemented, jurisdiction to direct correction of an accidental slip, omission or clerical mistake vests only in this Court. And, according to section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure this jurisdiction could be exercised at any time.
9. As far as the dismissal of Review Petitions Nos.56/C of 2001, 57/C of 2001, 58/C of 2001 and 59/C of 2001 are concerned, this Court while dismissing the review petitions vide order, dated 15-10-2001 observed that correction of clerical mistake could not form basis of review application and the petitioners (applicants) may if so advised, file an application for correction of clerical error. It was in view of this observation that the applicants have approached this Court in these applications under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The effort of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is to non-suit the applicants on a hypertechnical ground. Unless the controversy is decided in the spirit of the judgments rendered by this Court in the aforesaid revision petitions, the said judgment will be rendered as meaningless and the question whether the revision petitioners had constructed their houses on Khasra Number 539/1 (old)/347(new) will remain unresolved.
10. For what has been stated above, these applications are allowed and it is directed that in para.1 of the judgments dated 8-6-2001 passed in the aforesaid revision petitions, instead of Khasra No,539, it shall be lc read as "539/1 (old)/347 (new) and Khasra No,538 (old)".