Ramji Dass vs Sadhu Ram And Ors

CR-8331-2016 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(261)
CR-8331-2016 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 05.11.2026
Ramjit Dass (Deceased) through his LRs
… Petitioners
Versus
Sadhu Ram and Another
... Respondents
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr.Binderjit Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.
None for the respondent.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
1. The present revision petition has been preferred under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of
this Court, assailing the order dated 25.05.2016 ( Annexure P-13 ), passed
by the Additional District Judge, Faridkot, whereby the application dated
24.12.2012 ( Annexure P-11 ), seeking correction of the judgment and
decree dated 26.04.2010 passed by the said Court, has been dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, a suit was pending between the parties, and the
petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated
01.08.2007, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Faridkot. During the pendency of the appeal before the District Judge,
Faridkot, the parties arrived at a compromise in respect of the suit property
as well as certain other properties, whereupon the appeal was disposed of
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.05 15:30
I attest to the accuracy and int

CR-8331-2016 (O&M) -:2:-
in terms of the compromise. Subsequently, upon preparation of a separate
judgment and decree, it was noticed that the same did not accurately
reflect the terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. It was
also discovered that one of the Khasra numbers had been incorrectly
recorded in the compromise.
2.1. Accordingly, an application under Section 152 CPC was filed,
seeking rectification of the alleged arithmetical and clerical errors in the
judgment and decree. Three specific corrections were sought: firstly,
correction of the dimensions of the plot, as recorded at page No. 9 of the
judgment and page No. 5 of the decree sheet, from 81 feet × 102 feet to
162 feet × 102 feet; secondly, correction of Khasra No. 4145, as
mentioned in the compromise, judgment and decree, by substituting it with
Khasra No. 4945; and thirdly, rectification of the typographical error
concerning the date of compromise, from 21.01.2008 to 25.01.2008. The
Additional District Judge partly allowed the application and corrected the
date of compromise as reflected in the judgment and decree, while
declining the remaining two reliefs sought by the petitioner. Aggrieved by
the partial rejection of the application, the petitioner has preferred the
present revision petition.
3. Notice of motion was issued; however, despite service, none
appeared on behalf of the respondents.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and, with his
able assistance, having meticulously scrutinised the paper-book, this Court
finds that learned counsel has confined his submissions to the correction
sought in the judgment and decree with regard to the dimensions of the
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.05 15:30
I attest to the accuracy and int

CR-8331-2016 (O&M) -:3:-
plot, which were erroneously recorded as 81 feet × 102 feet, instead of 162
feet × 102 feet, as stipulated in the compromise arrived at between the
parties.
5. A perusal of the supplementary compromise (Ex.P2) and the
site plan (Ex.P3) unequivocally establishes that the dimensions of the plot
were 162 feet × 102 feet. The relevant description of the plot, as
incorporated in the compromise, reads as under:-
“Plaintiff and defendant have partitioned Plot No.34, 35 Khasra
No.4933 situated at Bathinda whose area is 1836 Square Yard in this
manner: Ram Ji Dass-defendant- applicant be declared owner of ½
share of plot which adjoins Krishan Kumar dimensions of which 81 x
102 and Sadhu Ram, Roshan Lal etc-respondent-plaintiff be declared
owner of ½ share which adjoins Savitri Devi dimensions of which 81 x
102, which has been shown in Site Plan, Site Plan of partition is
enclosed. ”
6. A careful perusal of the site plan (Ex.P3) reveals that the total
dimensions of the plot were 162 feet × 102 feet, which were equally
divided between the parties, resulting in two separate portions, each
measuring 81 feet × 102 feet. However, while incorporating the terms of
the compromise into the judgment and decree, the property was
erroneously described as a half share of a plot measuring 81 feet × 102
feet, thereby materially misrepresenting the actual dimensions of the
property agreed to be partitioned between the parties. The discrepancy is
evidently attributable to a clerical and typographical error, as the
supplementary compromise (Ex.P2), read in conjunction with the site plan
(Ex.P3), unequivocally establishes the original dimensions of the plot and
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.05 15:30
I attest to the accuracy and int

CR-8331-2016 (O&M) -:4:-
its equal division between the parties. Such an inadvertent error, which has
crept into the judgment and decree while recording the terms of the
compromise, is liable to be rectified so as to bring the judicial record in
conformity with the parties’ actual agreement. Accordingly, the present
revision petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent, and the judgment and
decree stand corrected by substituting the erroneous description with the
correct dimensions, namely, 162 feet × 102 feet, with each party being
entitled to a separate portion measuring 81 feet × 102 feet.
7. It is, however, clarified that the observations made here-in-
above are confined strictly to the adjudication of the issue arising in the
present proceedings and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion
on the merits of the underlying dispute. Such observations shall neither
prejudice nor influence the rights, claims or contentions of either party in
any other proceeding, nor shall they be treated as a determination of any
substantive question of fact or law arising in the main matter.
8. In view of the final disposal of the principal matter, all
pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly. No further orders are warranted.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
05.11.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.05 15:30
I attest to the accuracy and int