Onkar Chand And Others v. Roshan Lal And Another

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral):— Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 29.5.2018 passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, HP in CMA No. 23/15, whereby an application having been filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs (hereinafter, ‘plaintiffs’) under Ss. 151 and 152 CPC, praying therein for correction of clerical mistake came to be dismissed, plaintiffs have approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, with the prayer to set aside impugned order and thereafter, carry out necessary correction in the judgment and decree dated 29.5.2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in CA No. 10-P/2000.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the material available on record, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order as such, calls for no interference.

3. It clearly emerges from the record that learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala vide judgment and decree dated 29.5.2002, partly allowed the appeal, whereby plaintiffs came to be declared owner-in-possession of double storied house measuring 27 × 10 feet, situate over Khasra Nos. 1753 and 1754. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs did not initiate any proceedings before learned Additional District Judge, for correction of measurements, which ultimately came to be sought in the application under Ss. 151 and 152 CPC.

4. Close scrutiny of record reveals that there is no reference, if any, to verandah in the aforesaid judgment and decree rendered by learned Additional District Judge. Respondents herein, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, preferred Regular Second Appeal No. 405 of 2002, in this Court but fact remains that the same was dismissed, as a consequence of which, judgment and decree dated 29.5.2002, passed by learned Additional District Judge, came to be upheld.

5. Interestingly, even in these proceedings, plaintiffs failed to state that learned Additional District Judge, while passing judgment and decree dated 29.5.2002, wrongly recorded measurements as 27 × 10 feet instead of 27 Haath × 10 Haath. Finding returned by learned Additional District Judge qua double story house measuring 27 × 10 feet has been affirmed by this Court vide judgment and decree dated 18.3.2014, as such, learned Court below rightly rejected the application filed under Ss. 151 and 152 CPC, it having become functus officio qua the controversy.

6. In view of above, present petition is dismissing being sans merit, alongwith all pending applications.