AZIZ DAR Vs. ANWAR DAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Sections 151/152 C.P.C. for rectification/clarification of the Judgment and decree dated. 12 -9 -1976 passed in civil revision No. 39 of 1972 by the erstwhile Chief Justice Honble Shri S. M. F. Ali.

(2.) THE petitioner filed a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act for possession of the suit land described in the plaint with a further prayer for mandatory injunction that the defendant -respondent be directed to remove the structure raised on the said land and hand over the vacant possession of the said land to the petitioner. The suit was dismissed by the Munsiff Sumbal on 29 -4 -1972. The plaintiff moved the High Court in revision which was heard and decided on 12 -9 -1973. The revision was allowed and the plaintiffs suit was decreed. It is pertinent to reproduce the operative portion of the judgment of this court: "For these reasons the application is allowed, the decree passed by the learned Munsiff is set aside and the plaintiffs suit for possession under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act is decreed. There will be no order as to costs."

(3.) IN this application filed under Sections 151/152 C.P.C. it is submitted that the High Court while setting aside the decree of the Munsiff and while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, intended to pass a decree as prayed for by the plaintiffs in the suit. The court inadvartantly omitted to mention in the judgment the plaintiffs prayer for mandatory injunction. As the judgment omitted to mention this, the decree drawn up by the Registry also omitted to mention this prayer of mandatory injunction. As a result of this omission the defendants respondents have taken objection before the executing court that the decree is not executable as there is no -direction for demolition of the structures unauthorisedly raised on the disputed land. Consequently the executing court has not given effect to the decree for possession passed by the High Court and in this way the decree has become infructuous. It is submitted that the court may in exercise of its inherent powers care this defect by rectifying this mistake.