(1.) CAPTAIN Jagdish Singh filed a suit for pre-emption regarding a sale, which had taken place for Rupees 16730/ -. The suit was contested by the vendees Balwant Singh and Gurcharan Singh. The matter was, however, compromised between the parties on the following terms:

"a decree for possession by pre-emption of the suit land measuring 24 Kanals 16 Marlas as detailed in the heading of the plaint and the sale deed Exhibit D. 1 may be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants conditional on deposit of a consolidated amount of Rs. 16730/- in court by the plaintiff for payment to the vendees Nos. 1 and 2 only. This may be granted to the plaintiff to deposit the balance of pre-emption money amounting to Rs. 13330/- as he has already deposited in court Rs. 3400/- on account of the 1/5th of the pre-emption money, and on the failure of the plaintiff to deposit the entire pre-emption money within time, by 30th April, 1968, the suit of the plaintiff shall stand dismissed as withdrawn, i. e. also agree between the parties that in case the plaintiff deposits in court the entire pre-emption money within time, he would be entitled to get possession of the suit land after 20th May, 1968, without payment of any compensation for the standing crops if any. The parties be, however, left to bear their own costs of this suit. Defendant No. 3 is an unnecessary party of the suit and the plaintiff does not claim any relief against him because he is vendor. The counsel for the plaintiff admitted this above statement to be correct. "

In view of this settlement, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Gurdaspur in whose Court the case was pending, passed a decree in accordance with the said compromise. Both the judgment and the decree, however, by a clerical mistake the amount of pre-emption money to be paid by the pre-emptor to the vendees was mentioned as Rs. 16770/- in place of Rs. 167730/ -. In June 1968, Jagdish Singh took out execution of the decree after having deposited Rs. 16730/- within the stipulated period. On 7th June, 1968, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge dismissed the said execution application, observing that it was not maintainable inasmuch as the entire pre-emption money had not bee deposited within the fixed time. He further ordered that the papers be consigned to the record room. Thereafter, Jagdish Singh made an application under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for making the necessary correction in the amount of the pre-emption money mentioned in the judgment and the decree-sheet, as, according to him, the mistake was a clerical one and had been made inadvertently through an oversight. This application was contested by the vendees saying that Jagdish Singh should have preferred an appeal against the order dismissing the execution application on the ground that the full pre-emption money had not been deposited within the stipulated time. According to them, the plaintiff could not make an application under Sections 151 to 153, Code of Civil Procedure, as he had done.

(2.) THE learned Senior Subordinate Judge accepted the application for the amendment of the judgment and the decree and ordered that the amount of Rs. 16730/- be written in place of Rupees 16770/- therein. He observed that no litigant should suffer by an arithmetical mistake committed by the Court. He also held that the application filed by Jagdish Singh was competent and it did not make any difference if he had obviously filed an execution application, which had been dismissed. Against this decision, the vendees have filed the present revision petition.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that according to the compromise, the pre-emption had to deposit only Rs. 16730/- for payment to the vendees and that he had done within the time fixed. It was, however, due to some accidental slip that the amount mentioned in the judgment and the decree-sheet was Rs. 16770/- instead of Rs. 16730/ -. According to Section 152, Code of Civil Procedure, such an error can at any time be corrected by the Court either on its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. The said section says that clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either on its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. The application made by Jagdish Singh was, therefore fully covered by the provisions of this section and the said mistake could be corrected by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge. The impugned order, therefore, in my view was in accordance with law.

(4.) THE objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that since the pre-emptor had taken out execution of the decree, in which the amount had been erroneously entered as Rs. 16770/-, and the learned Senior Subordinate Judge had dismissed that execution application on the ground that the entire pre-emption money had not been deposited within the stipulated time, the pre-emptor should have filed an appeal against the order, which amounted to a decree. In face of that order, according to the learned counsel, Jagdish Singh could not move an application under Section 151 to 153 Code of Civil Procedure.

(5.) I find no merit in this objection. Assuming for the sake of argument that the pre-emptor could go up in appeal against the order passed by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, dismissing his execution application, he could not have succeeded there. He would have been met with the plea that the decree, as it stood, mentioned the amount of Rs. 16770/- and as the pre-emptor had not deposited that amount, the executing Court was well within its rights to dismiss the execution application. Obviously, the executing Court cannot go behind the decree. If there was an arithmetical error or an accidental slip in framing the decree, the appellate Court would have said that the proper remedy was to apply for the amendment of the decree under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and this is precisely what the plaintiff has done. Errors of this kind, as I have already mentioned above, can be corrected by the Court suo motu or on the application of any of the parties at any time. When the decree is amended the plaintiff can again sue out execution of the same and show to the executing Court that he had already compiled with it well within time.

(6.) THE view that I have taken finds support in a Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Gurdian Kaur v. Pritam Singh, 67 PLR 172 [LQ/PunjHC/1964/260] = (AIR 1966 Punj 212)

(7.) THE petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed, but I will make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.