1. This application has been filed by Harbans Kaur, plaintiff-respondent, under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the code') for rectification of the decree in Regular Second Appeal No.1545 of 1970. The suit of the pre-emptor was decreed by the trial court. In the decree prepared by the trial court, Rectangle No.3 was wrongly mentioned as Rectangle No.10 and the area of Killa No.17 of Rectangle No.3 was wrongly mentioned as 3 kanals and 7 marlas instead of 7 kanals and 3 marlas. The same mistake was repeated in the decree of the Additional District Judge dated August 1, 1970, who affirmed the decree of the trial Court and maintained the decree for pre-emption. This court also affirmed the decree for pre-emption the decree for pre-emption and the same mistake crept in, in the decree of this court.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the decree of the trial Court as well as that of the first appellate Court has merged into the decree of this Court and this is the only Court which can rectify the decree now. In support of his contention, he has relied on Mst. Jowala Devi v. Kanwar Singh, 1896 Punj Re 32. In that case, some mistake crept in, in the decree of the District Judge which was confirmed by the Chief Court. An application was subsequently made to the District Judge for rectification of the decree. It was declined by him on the ground that it could be rectified by the Chief Court alone. The aggrieved party went to the Chief Court in revision. A Division Bench of the Chief Court held that the decree of the appellate Court was the only decree capable of execution and, therefore, the only decree to be amended, was that of the chief court, and the District Judge had rightly declined the jurisdiction. He has also relied on Shyamal Bihar Mishra v. Girish Narain Missir, AIR 1962 Pat 116, wherein it has been observed that if the decree of the first Court is affirmed on appeal by the High court, then the decree of the first court having merged in the decree of the High Court, the High Court alone would have jurisdiction to amend it. I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations and hold that in the present case this Court has the jurisdiction to amend the decree. I, therefore, order that the decree may be amended and Rectangle No.3 may be mentioned instead of Rectangle No.10 and the area of Killa No.17 of Rectangle No.3 may be corrected from 3 Kanals and 7 marlas to 7 kanals and 3 marlas. There is, however no order as to costs.
3. Petition allowed