- (1.)The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 03.12.2004 whereby the prayer made in the application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) filed by the decree holder had been allowed and he had been permitted to file a fresh site plan giving correct details of the disputed premises. Record shows that the present suit for possession and permanent injunction had been filed by the plaintiff; this suit had been decreed on 25.01.2002. The averments made in para 3 of the plaint specifically state that the premises comprise of one shop on the ground floor, one room and balcony situated on the first floor measuring about 25 to 30 sq. yards as depicted in red colour in the site plan had been leased out to the tenant. Corresponding para of the written statement has been perused. There is no dispute or denial to this averment. The actual area of the property leased out to the tenant i.e. the portion on the ground floor and portion on the first floor which was in occupation of the tenant was never the subject of dispute before the Trial Court.
(2.)Record shows that in the prayer clause of the plaint, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree of possession qua the suit property as depicted in red colour in the site plan. The judgment and decree dated 25.01.2002 had decreed the suit of the plaintiff qua the green portion as depicted in the site plan. The suit plan had been produced before the Trial Court as Ex. PW1/6. This site plan had in fact depicted only ground floor of the suit premises; first floor was not shown. Portion shown in red colour was in occupation of the landlord; the green colour portion is in occupation of the tenant; inadvertently, in the prayer clause the plaintiff had prayed for a decree for a red coloured portion in the site plan whereas the tenant was in occupation of green coloured portion. However, the decree had been passed qua the green colour portion; this was qua the ground floor as this site plant has not depicted the first floor premises. All these facts are undisputed and are part of the record.
(3.)In the course of execution proceedings, the bailiff executed decree only qua the ground floor as the site plan shows only the ground floor portion; decree had been passed qua the ground floor portion and not qua the first floor portion. The plaintiff had accordingly filed an application under Sections 151 & 152 of the Code stating that this was a clerical mistake which is liable to be corrected. Impugned order had allowed his prayer. This is the grievance of the petitioner.