SURESH KUMAR KESHWANI Vs. KISHAN LAL VISHWAKARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed the present revision challenging the order dated 26/10/2017 passed by 18th Additional District Judge, District Jabalpur in MJC No.10/2014 thereby rejecting an application preferred by the applicant under sections 151 and 152 of the CPC.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent has filed a civil suit for declaration, partition and possession in respect of house Nos.183, 184 and 185 situated at Cherital, Jabalpur. The said civil suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 17/11/2006 in which this Court has held that the sale deed which has been executed by the parties were void under the law and the defendant did not get any right, title and interest in the suit property. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the applicant has preferred an appeal before this Court which was registered as F.A. 139/2007. This Court vide judgment and decree dated 12/09/2011 has set aside the order passed by the trial Court and held that both the sale deeds are valid under the law. The plaintiff/respondent thereafter filed execution proceedings against the applicant. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the present applicant came to know that new number of old house No.184 A, B, C was wrongly mentioned and area of the house No. 184 A B C was not mentioned in the decree. The correct new number of the lod house no.184 A, B, C is 2066, 2067, 2068 and area 1073 square feet, therefore, he filed an application under sections 151 and 152 of the CPC for correcting the said house numbers in the decree for proper adjudication of the execution proceedings. The decree holder i.e. respondent has denied all the averments in the application but he executed that new number of old house No.184 A B C is 2066, 2067 and 2068. After hearing both the parties, the learned executing Court vide order dated 26/10/2017 has rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by that order, the applicant has filed the present revision before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the Executing Court has erred in rejecting the application preferred by the applicant under section 152 of the CPC. He submits that in the judgment, wrong house number was mentioned, therefore, he submitted an application for correcting the same, however, the executing Court has erroneously dismissed the said application. He further submits that the Executing Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested in it by law. He further relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Rishabh Kumar Jain v. G.C. Jain, ILR 2013 M.P., 2977, as well as the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Sonulal and others v. Janki Bai and others, 2002(1) MPHT 131.