' The civil revision calls in question the judgment/order, dated 12-3-2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore on an application filed by the petitioners under section 12, C.P.C. Whereby amendment of the decree, dated 28-2-1997 was prayed on the ground that it does not contain the period for which interest is payable on the decretal amount.
2. Precisely relevant facts are that respondent No,1 on 21-10-1993 filed a suit for recovery of Rs,2,85,33,901 against the petitioners, on account of compensation of land measuring one Kanal and 11 Marlas and 95 square feet situated in Qila Gujjar Singh, Lahore, owned by him. Respondent No,1 pleaded in his plaint that the petitioners utilized his land for construction of a road, for which he claimed Rs,3,00,000 per Marla as price of the land with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and interest there over. The suit was contested by the petitioners but was ultimately decreed by the learned Civil Judge who was seized of the matter, vide his judgment and decree, dated 28-2-1997, granting a decree for an amount of Rs,1,08,40,666 and 15% compulsory acquisition charges with 8% interest per year.
3. The petitioners aggrieved of the order of the trial Court dated 28-2-1997, filed an appeal before this Court (R.F.A. 177 of 1997) which was dismissed on 11-9-2000, whereafter a Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,2483/L of 2000 was filed before the Honourable Supreme Court but the same was dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court on 19-3-2003. Respondent No,1 filed an execution petition wherein, the petitioner's account was attached through an order, dated 22-5-1998 whereupon the pay order of the decretal amount was handed over to the decree-holder on 24-3- 2000 subject to furnishing of Bank Guarantee by him. Executing Court appointed a Local Commissioner to calculate interest on the decretal amount as per judgment and decree dated 28- 2-1997. According to the report of the Local Commissioner amount of compound interest at the rate of Rs,8% per annum comes to Rs,2,27,44,738 and this amount was conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioners to be payable. Executing Court required the petitioners to pay the remaining decretal amount vide order, dated 10-6-2003. The petitioners did not make the payment of interest and filed an application under section 151, C.P.C. Praying permission to file fresh objections to the report of the Local Commission. The Executing Court dismissed this application and the petitioner filed Civil Revision No,1923 of 2003 before this Court which also failed on 20-10- 2003 and leave to appeal was refused to the petitioners by the Honourable Supreme Court in C.P.
No,2693/L of 2003 through a judgment, dated 23-1-2004.
4. The petitioners again moved two petitions with similar request of inclusion of period of interest in the decree, dated 28-2-1997, in terms of section 34 of C.P.C. Which have been dismissed through the order impugned dated 12-3-2004, hence this revision petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the decree-holder was granted 8% interest per annum, without specifying the period, froth which date and till what date, it is to be paid, thus, in view of provisions of section 34 of C.P.C. Amendment of the decree is inevitable. He further submitted that neither the Executing Court could go beyond the decree itself nor it could get calculation of the interest from the Local Commission who also incorrectly calculated the compound interest, for an unspecified period. Section 34, C.P.C. Was heavily relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners to contend that the decree should have contained the length of time for which the petitioners are liable to pay interest. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the trial Court fell into an error of law in dismissing their application under section 152, C.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the cases of Muhammad Ali and others v. Ghulam Sarwar and others 1989 SCMR 640, Terni S.P.A. v. PECO (Pakistan Engineering Company) Ltd. 1992 SCMR 2238, Messrs M.Y. Malik & Company and 2 others v. Messrs Splendours International through M.D. 1997 SCMR 309, 1999 SCMR 1938, Dr. M. Aslam Khaki v. Syed Muhammad Hashim and 2 others PLD 2000 SC 225 and Province of Punjab through Secretary Industries, Government of the Punjab; Civil Secretariat, Lahore v. Burewala Textile Mills Limited 2001 SCMR 396 in support of his submissions.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,1 refuted the assertions of the petitioners, supported the order impugned and urged that earlier this matter was resolved by this Court, as well as by the Honourable Supreme Court and in view of binding judgments between the'parties, application under section 152, C.P.C. Was not maintainable. It was further contended that the trial Court in concluding lines of paritgraph 25 of its judgment dated 28-2-1997 had resolved dispute by holding that respondent No,1 is entitled to 8% compound interest from the date of his dispossession till the payment of the amount and after this finding there is no necessity to amend the decree. According to submissions of the learned counsel for respondent No,1 the application by the petitioners is mala fide and is aimed at to delay the payment of the decretal amount.
7... I have anxiously considered, the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, appended herewith. Undeniably under section 34,C.P.C. The trial Court is invested with power to award the interest on the principal amount adjudged by it, from the date of suit till the date of decree and in addition thereto, any interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable, on the aggregate sum of the amount payable from the date of decree till the date of payment or from such earlier date, as the Court thinks fit and if the decree is silent with regard to payment of further interest, that shall be deemed to have been refused. The trial Court in its judgment, dated 28-2-1997 dealt with this aspect of the matter in concluding lines of its paragraph 25 of the judgment which reads as under:-- "The plaintiff's claim as to the compensation is regarding the land measuring 1 Kanal, 11 Marlas 95 sq. Ft. At the rate of Rs,3,00,000 per Marla can be counted as Rs,94,26,666 alongwith the fifteen (15) per cent. Compulsory acquisition charges Rs,14,14,000 the total value of the disputed property becomes Rs,1,08,40,666, if the said amount would have been disbursed to the plaintiff in time he would have put it to some use and obtained benefit therefrom. The provisions of Land Acquisition Act guarantee 8% compound interest on such amount. The plaintiff in view of illegal acts of the defendants is clearly entitled to the compensation at the rate of 8% from the date of his dispossession till the said is paid to him."
8 It is clear from the above reproduced part of the original judgment that the petitioner cannot urge that the decree is silent about the length of period for which the interest is to be paid. It also does not lie with the petitioners that the Local Commissioner incorrectly worked out the amount on the basis of compound interest. This Court while deciding Civil Revision No,1923 of 2003, observed in the judgment, dated 20-10-2003 to the following effect namely:-- "There is also a reference to compound interest in para. No,25 of the judgment at the rate of 8% per annum. Be that as it may, I am clear in mind that respondent No,1 is entitled to the amount granted by the decree itself and non else. After concession of liability, petitioners have no right to file any fresh objections to the report of the Local Commissioner."
9. The petitioners feeling themselves dissatisfied with the decision of the Executing Court, disallowing them to file fresh objections to the report of the Local Commissioner which order was affirmed by this Court and above reproduced remarks were made and those were challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court, wherein while dealing this aspect of the case, following" observations were made by the Honourable Supreme Court namely:-- "As against above, learned counsel for respondent No,1 argued that in earlier round of litigation the respondent was granted compound interest on entire amount and judgment of learned trial Court was maintained up to this Court. It is evident from record, that suit of the respondent against the petitioners was decreed for Rs,1,08,40,666 as price of land and 15 per cent. Compulsory acquisition charges with interest @ 8 per cent. Per year. It is clear from record that the respondent was entitled to the amount granted by the decree itself, which could not be modified or Varied on the grounds now raised before us, particularly when the petitioners had no legal right to file fresh objections against the report of the Local Commission."
10. The Honourable Supreme Court in the above referred alighted remarks very graciously observed that respondent No,1 was entitled to the amount granted by the decree itself which could not be modified or varied on the grounds, now raised by them. Neither the judgment and decree, dated 28-2-1997 is silent about the length of period for which the interest is to be paid, as discussed above, nor section 34, C.P.C. Is of any help to the petitioner. It is no doubt correct that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree subject of execution, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Province of Punjab through Secretary Industry, Government of the Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Lahore (supra). In this case the Executing Court had allowed interest for modification/alteration of the decree which was held to be without any legal justification. Likewise the other judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners are of not much help to the case of the petitioners because the judgment and decree subject of execution has already adjudicated upon the point now sought to be determined by the petitioners.
11. Scope of section 152, C.P.C. Is very narrow, as this provision of law is only meant to correct clerical and arithmetical mistakes in the judgments and decrees etc. These provisions are not meant to reopen the case, as desired by the petitioners. Had there been any omission in the judgment and decree which is not in the instant case as observed above, and that could only be rectified through an appeal or review. Clerical or arithmetical error is one which can only be explained by considering it to be result of slip of pen or some mistake or omission on the part of the person preparing it but the learned Civil Judge in the instant case decided the original suit, resolving the controversy now canvassed by the petitioners. The part of the judgment of the trial Court above produced, demonstrates that those findings were given after application of conscious judicial mind to the case, wherein, no error has been pointed out in terms of section 152, C.P.C. Thus, the application in hand was rightly rejected by the trial Court as held by an Honourable Full Bench of this Court in the case of Crown v. Habib Ullah and others PLD 1952 Lah. 587 and the view taken by the Honourable Full Bench was followed in the case of Master Ghulam Rasul v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and another PLD 1982 Lah.
303.
12. For the aforementioned reasons, I am constrained to hold that the order of the trial Court has been passed in consonance with the original judgment and decree dated 28-2-1997. (earlier decision between the parties) and the law applicable. No illegality or irregularity amenable to revisional jurisdiction, has been committed by the Court below, in absence of which no interference is called for by this Court. This revision petition has no merits in it and is accordingly dismissed with costs.