USMAAN Vs. FAIZ MOHAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the matter is listed for orders on the question of admission as well as interim, however, it is finally. Further, considering the nature of order which this Court is inclined to pass in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents.

(2.) This revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the applicants have been filed against the order dated 16.12.2019 passed by First Civil Judge Class-I, Dindori in Civil Case No.102-A/2015 whereby the application filed by the applicants under section 152 of C.P.C. seeking correction of decree has been dismissed.

(3.) The applicants filed a suit for declaration of title, possession and injunction against the respondent in respect of suit land. During pendency of said civil suit, the parties filed an application under Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C. for issuing compromise decree in accordance with the terms enumerated in the compromise application. The application under Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C. was allowed and compromise decree was drawn. As averred in the revision, since perusal of the compromise decree reveals that the same does not exactly set out the terms of compromise, the applicants filed an application under section 152 of C.P.C. stating that court below itself granted a decree for injunction in favuor of respondent No.1 and compromise in respect of land bearing Khasra No.50/5 has not been recorded. Therefore, correction in the compromise decree be made. The learned Court below vide impugned order dated 16.12.2019 dismissed the application seeking correction in compromise decree on the ground that correction sought does not fall under the purview of arithmetical or clerical error and the same amounts to seeking review of same.