SMT. DEEPO Vs. IQBAL SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the executing Court has jurisdiction to amend a decree sought to be executed before it, and if so, whether such amendment can be made therein before ordering amendment in the plaint in the first instance, are the two salient questions cropping up in the present revision petition. In order to understand the controversy it is necessary to notice the facts in detail.

(2.) IQBAL Singh, plaintiff -respondent No. 1 herein, filed a suit against the defendants, Deepo and Satnam Kaur daughters of Ujagar Singh, petitioner and respondent No. 3 respectively, for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell the suit land with all rights appurtenant thereto, directing the defendants to execute the sale deed of the said land in his favour. It is pertinent to mention here that in the array of plaintiff as incorporated in the plaint, name of only one person was mentioned that also, to read as "Iqbal Singh son of Shri Sardool Singh, resident of East Mohan Nagar, Amritsar" and a minute glance on the head note and the prayer clause also denote that a decree for possession by way of specific performance has been sought by only one person viz. Iqbal Singh plaintiff aforesaid. Even the averments made in the plaint also reflect that the defendants had agreed to sell the suit land to only one person i.e. the plaintiff and the agreement to that effect was executed on January 20, 1980 by them in his favour only. The suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated November 8, 1986 passed by the trial Court. The judgment and decree aforesaid -also denote that there was only one plaintiff, by the name of Iqbal Singh son of Sardool Singh.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the executing Court had no jurisdiction to order correction in the decree sheet and that it was only the court which passed the decree, that had jurisdiction and not the executing Court. The counsel also contended that even if it be assumed that the Court passing the decree had jurisdiction to do so, yet no correction could be ordered in the decree sheet before ordering amendment in the plaint, in the first instance. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that even it the impugned order is illegal, this Court ought not to interfere therewith in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, : A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 76.