G.C. Garg, J. - (1.) WHETHER the executing Court has jurisdiction to amend a decree sought to be executed before it, and if so, whether such amendment can be made therein before ordering amendment in the plaint in the first instance, are the two salient questions cropping up in the present revision petition. In order to understand the controversy it is necessary to notice the facts in detail.
(2.) IQBAL Singh, plaintiff -respondent No. 1 herein, filed a suit against the defendants, Deepo and Satnam Kaur daughters of Ujagar Singh, petitioner and respondent No. 3 respectively, for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell the suit land with all rights appurtenant thereto, directing the defendants to execute the sale deed of the said land in his favour. It is pertinent to mention here that in the array of plaintiff as incorporated in the plaint, name of only one person was mentioned that also, to read as "Iqbal Singh son of Shri Sardool Singh, resident of East Mohan Nagar, Amritsar" and a minute glance on the head note and the prayer clause also denote that a decree for possession by way of specific performance has been sought by only one person viz. Iqbal Singh plaintiff aforesaid. Even the averments made in the plaint also reflect that the defendants had agreed to sell the suit land to only one person i.e. the plaintiff and the agreement to that effect was executed on January 20, 1980 by them in his favour only. The suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated November 8, 1986 passed by the trial Court. The judgment and decree aforesaid -also denote that there was only one plaintiff, by the name of Iqbal Singh son of Sardool Singh. The plaintiff took out execution wherein the judgment debtors filed objections. The objections were, however, dismissed but sale deed was ordered to be executed in favour of Iqbal Singh and Sardool Singh instead of Iqbal Singh alone. One of the objections raised by the judgment debtors was that decree has been passed in favour of Iqbal Singh son of Sardool Singh and, therefore, sale deed could not be ordered to be executed in favour of Iqbal Singh and Sardool Singh sons of Balwant Singh. It was perhaps having regard to this objection, Iqbal Singh decree -holder moved an application dated October 16, 1990, Under Section 152/153 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the executing Court praying that agreement to sell had been executed in his favour and his brother Sardool Singh, both sons of Balwant Singh and it was on account of a typographical mistake that in the decree "Iqbal Singh son of Sardool Singh" was mentioned in the array of plaintiff whereas it should have been "Iqbal Singh, Sardool Singh sons of Balwant Singh''. It was thus prayed that sale deed having already been executed in their favour, the inadvertent mistake occurring in the decree sheet be rectified and corrected to read as "Iqbal Singh, Sardool Singh sons of Balwant Singh." The application was opposed by the judgment debtors. The executing Court, however, by order dated April 20, 1991 allowed the application and amended the decree sheet as prayed by the decree holders. It is against this order, the present revision has been filed by Deepo, one of the judgment -debtors.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the executing Court had no jurisdiction to order correction in the decree sheet and that it was only the court which passed the decree, that had jurisdiction and not the executing Court. The counsel also contended that even if it be assumed that the Court passing the decree had jurisdiction to do so, yet no correction could be ordered in the decree sheet before ordering amendment in the plaint, in the first instance. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that even it the impugned order is illegal, this Court ought not to interfere therewith in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, : A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 76.;