INDRAWATI Vs. GOPI RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 19.10.2011, passed by the court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 151/152 CPC regarding correction of clerical/typographical error in the order dated 28.7.2011 deciding the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, was dismissed.

(2.) Vide order dated 28.7.2011, considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, the defendants in the suit were restrained from alienating the property more than their share or any specific khasra number in the joint property without prior permission of the court. The application was filed by the petitioner claiming that specific interim stay regarding raising of any type of construction on the property in dispute has been omitted in the order. However, after considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the court below dismissed the application, as it was not a case of omission in the order.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, even this court also does not find that anything which has not been specifically granted to the petitioner vide order dated 28.7.2011 can be said to be an omission, especially when the contentions have specifically been dealt with in paragraph 7 of the order dated 28.7.2011, whereby referring to the judgment of this court in Hussan Lal v. Krishna Devi,1996 1 CivCC 384, it has been mentioned that construction, if any, raised by the co-sharers is subject to the final decision of the suit for partition.