(1.) Regular Second Appeal No. 50 of 1982 was decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 28.8.1991. The operative part of the judgment thus rendered is as follows: - "A decree for declaration and joint possession with the defendants is passed .in favour of the plaintiffs to the effect that Smt Gunthi and plaintiff No. 2 being widow and son of late Shri Goverdhan are entitled to inherit 1/24th and 1/12th share each respectively from the land in dispute. They are also held entitled to decree for prohibitory injunction against the defendants to the extent of the above said share. No costs."
(2.) The present application has been filed under Sections 131,152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the decree holder i.e. Sant Ram on the plea that the total land in dispute was measuring 244 Bighas and 15 Biswas, out of which 76 Bighas and 9 Biswas contained in Khasra No. 129 to 132 stood vested with the tenants in accordance with law having conferred proprietary rights on them. The remaining land is 168 Bighas and 6 Biswas, and out of this land 23 Bighas also went to the tenants after they had been conferred proprietary rights. Now, the area remaining is 144 Bighas, out of which only l/3rd being 47.14 Bighas went to the parties in dispute. The remaining land had gone to the village being the right holders. In other works, the suit land in facts pertains to only 47.14 Bighas.
(3.) According to the decree holder -applicant in the operative part of the judgment, a clerical mistake has occurred in which the actual area of the land in sipute i.e. 47 Bighas and 14 Biswas has not been mentioned. The said judgment was reviewed on the application moved by the respondent i.e. judgment debtor on 18.3.1994. In this also, there was an omission to mention the area in dispute. It is further stated in the application that when the decree holder -applicant i.e. Sant Ram approached the executing court, the said court raised an objection that it is not clear that out of which property, the shares have been explained or given. This is so because according to the facts, it appears that the area measuring 168 Bighas approximately was involved. When the warrants for possession were issued, the report given by the revenue department was mat for want of appropriate ascertainment of the shares of the property, the possession could not be delivered. Hence, the prayer for amendment of the judgment and decree referred to above has been made in the present application.