The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Gulzara Singh v. Devinder Singh (2004) (3) CCC 455 wherein this Court was pleased to hold that correction in the judgment can also be made even if the error has occurred due to wrong pleadings. The Court was further pleased to hold that it was not necessary first to amend the pleadings. In view of the law laid down by this Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
4. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the application moved by the petitioners under Section 152 of the CPC is allowed. The trial Court is directed to carry out necessary correction in the order.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided On: 19.01.2007
Mrs. Meena Kumari Vs. General Public and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
V.K. Sharma, J.
Citation: AIR 2007 P&H 51
1. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents in spite of service. Proceeded ex parte.
2. The petitioners herein moved a petition under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act (for short the 'Act') for issuance of a succession certificate. The said petition was allowed and succession certificate with respect to immovable property as given under the schedule was ordered to be issued. The petitioner was also asked to furnish the requisite stamp papers and indemnity bond for a sum of Rs. 14,18,500.90 ps. (Fourteen lacs eighteen thousand five hundred and paise ninety only) with one surety in the like amount. The petitioners thereafter moved an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for making necessary correction with regard to account number as the same was wrongly mentioned. According to the petitioner, account number was mentioned as 165403 instead of account No. 160403. The said application of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Court below by observing that the judgment was passed in accordance with the pleadings and there was no clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the judgment or any accidental slip so as to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 152 of the CPC. The petitioner thereafter filed a review petition which has also been dismissed.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Gulzara Singh v. Devinder Singh (2004) (3) CCC 455 wherein this Court was pleased to hold that correction in the judgment can also be made even if the error has occurred due to wrong pleadings. The Court was further pleased to hold that it was not necessary first to amend the pleadings. In view of the law laid down by this Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
4. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the application moved by the petitioners under Section 152 of the CPC is allowed. The trial Court is directed to carry out necessary correction in the order.
No comments:
Post a Comment