Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) - Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.2.2005 passed by the learned trial court while accepting the application of the plaintiff decreeholder. Application was filed on the ground that while decreeing the suit, the learned court had directed that the defendant could not interfere in the use of the street adjoining the property of the parties nor could open any gate/window therein and the gate/window open from before should be closed down and the window of the plaintiff should be allowed to remain open and accordingly the decree should be prepared. In the decree that was originally prepared, although the other part of the direction was indicated but the direction with regard to removal of "chajja" was not correctly indicated. Though the word "chajja" was incorporated in the decree but the fact that the direction that it should be removed was left out from being mentioned therein. In the application, prayer to that effect was made that the application may be allowed by invoking Section 152 CPC.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that this amounted to review of the original judgment as the nature of amendment/direction in the decree did not fall within the purview of clerical error which is the scope of Section 152 CPC.;