JAI SINGH Vs. SARDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER in the present petition is for setting aside the order dated 16.9.2003, passed by Additional District Judge, Rohtak, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for correction of decree sheet dated 26.10.1995 in Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1995, was dismissed

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that one Shri Pandit Ram Singh took loan from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak in 1954. As he failed to repay the same, recovery proceedings were initiated and the property owned by him was put to public auction. The petitioner, being highest bidder, was successful in the auction proceedings. The entire amount of auction money of Rs. 8,000/- was deposited by the petitioner with the authorities way back in the 1973, when the auction took place. The possession of the property was delivered to the petitioner and he is in actual physical possession thereof since 27.7.1973. As the letter of ownership was not issued in favour of the petitioner and the entries in the revenue records were not changed, the suit was filed, which was dismissed by the trial court. However, the learned lower appellate court decreed the same on 26.10.1995. The application came to be filed for correction of the description of the property, as was mentioned in the plaint, which was ultimately incorporated in the judgment and decree. It is the order passed in the aforesaid application which is impugned before this Court.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned court below had decreed the suit in terms of the pleadings and prayer made by the petitioner before the court. The description of the property, as was given by the petitioner in the plaint, has been made part of the judgment and decree. It is too late in the day for the petitioner to now seek correction thereof, as it would amount to grant of relief pertaining to the property which was never sought. Relying upon Patti Amma v. Raman Nair, AIR 1962 Kerala 6, it was submitted that amendment of decree to rectify a judgment which is defective on merits is not permissible in law.