MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs ALI MUHAMMAD Ss — 2025 PLD 682 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN VS ALI MUHAMMAD Ss. 151 & 152---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), Ss. 8 & 42---amendment in decree---Scope---Clerical or arithmetic mistake---Determination---accidental slip or omission---Suit for declaration with recovery of possession instituted by the petitioners/plaintiffs was dismissed, however, their appeal was partially allowed without giving the relief of possession---Petitioners sought amendment in the decree on the ground that while preparing the decree, the relief of possession was omitted by the appellate Court, thus, the decree was in disagreement with the judgment---Validity---Petitioners in their suit themselves claimed to be owner in possession of the suit property and sought only declaration, thus, the court could not grant them relief of possession---"accidental slip or omission" as used in S. 152, C.P.C. means to leave out or failure to mention something unintentionally; it is only where the slip or omission as accidental or unintentional could it be supplemented or added in exercise of jurisdiction conferred under S. 152, C.P.C.---Such course is provided to foster cause of justice, to suppress mischief and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, however, where slip or omission is intentional and deliberate, it could only be remedied or corrected by way of review if permissible or in appeal or revision as the case may be---Trial Court declared the possession of the respondents/defendants valid on the basis of adverse possession, but the appellate Court did not alter or set aside the findings of the Trial Court---Slip or omission was not accidental or unintentional rather it was intentional and deliberate, thus, if the petitioners had any grievance, then they should have approached the superior courts for redressal of their grievance, but they never challenged the said judgment and decree, which attained finality and could not be altered even with the consent of the parties---Decree was totally in accordance with the judgment, thus, did not call for any rectification under Ss. 151 and 152, C.P.C.---Civil Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 682 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN VS ALI MUHAMMAD S. 152---amendment in decree---Limitation---Power of the court---Scope---There is no time limit for entertaining an application under S. 152, C.P.C.---Power can be exercised suo motu---Powers of court under S.152, C.P.C. are unlimited, which does not mean that they will be exercised in all cases in which an application for their exercise is made---Exercise of power will depend on the circumstances of each case---Power is, thus, discretionary with the court---Normally where S. 152, C.P.C. is attracted court will order amendment, unless it is inequitable to do so. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 682 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN VS ALI MUHAMMAD O. XX, R. 6---Contents of decree---Conformity of decree with the judgment---Duty of court---Scope---It is duty of the court, while drawing the decree, to specify clearly the relief granted or other determination of rights of the parties in the suit so as to make it in conformity with the will of the court capable of enforcement.

MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs ALI MUHAMMAD Ss — 2025 PLD 682 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD