M. Yaqoob Mir, J.
1. Impugned is the order dated 16.07.2007 passed by learned Munsiff, Ganderbal, wherein petition for review filed by petitioners herein has been allowed. The grievance of the petitioners is that the learned Trial Court has exceeded the jurisdiction by traveling beyond what was prayed for in the application, resultantly, miscarriage of justice is apparent.
2. Precise factual background has to be noticed so as to determine the matter in its right direction.
3. Petitioners (plaintiffs) filed suit for declaration and injunction as against the respondents (defendants) viz-a-viz land measuring 12 marlas covered by survey No. 453 falling under khewat no, 19 situated at Khalmulla, Tehsil, Ganderbal. Sale deed regarding the same land shown to have been executed by the petitioners was sought to be cancelled being forged. Parties have entered into proper compromise which is evidenced by written compromise presented before the Court of learned Munsiff based on which suit has been decreed.
4. In the compromise deed survey number as recorded has been made suspicious by applying the correction fluid. Petitioners have filed application in terms of Section 152 CPC praying for rectification in the compromise deed to the extent of correcting the mistake which has been rejected vide order dated 19.09.2005 by the learned Munsiff. Not satisfied with the same, petitioners have filed application for review which has been allowed pursuant to order impugned dated 16.07.2007. While doing so, learned Munsiff has opined that the compromise entered into by the parties is not required to be acted upon judgment and decree drawn up is reviewed and matter be considered afresh. Aggrieved of the said order, instant revision petition has been filed.
5. Heard and considered the submissions.
6. At the very outset, I may not hesitate to say that matter has been hoodwinked, appreciation of the matter has been a causality. Unnecessarily, the matter has been made complicated, exercise of jurisdiction has been exceeded to beyond the permissible limits. It is to be grasped that ill motivated engineering of proceedings shall not stand in the way of dispensation of justice. The irregularities are quiet evident as while disposing of the application under Section 152, learned Munsiff has opined that error is not in the judgment, it is in the compromise deed, rejected the application, forcing the petitioners to file review petition. In the review it has been specifically pleaded that in the compromise recorded survey No. is 453 when it is actually 354. It is only to this extent, review was sought, Learned Munsiff vide order impugned has opined that the compromise is not to be acted upon, which is not in tune with the pleadings.
7. Admittedly, in the plaint survey No. is mentioned as 354, khewat No. 19, situated at Village Khalmulla in the sale deed also survey No. has been mentioned as 354 and khewat number has been mentioned as 19. Parties have entered into compromise viz-a-viz subject matter of the suit. In compromise deed mysteriously, the survey number has been written as 453 and Khewat number as 19 situated at Village Khalmulla. This can be termed to be survey No. 354. The error in the compromise deed could be at the most termed to be clerical mistake. On this clerical mistake, the compromise reached between the parties can not be set a naught by setting aside the decree. Same is totally unwarranted as the review of the judgment and decree was not sought in its entirety. It was restricted to the correction of mistake i.e. to mention survey No. 354 instead of 453.
8. While decreeing the suit, it was duty of the court to pass judgment and to correct survey number in the order passed on the basis of compromise. Learned Munsiff has recorded that case is disposed of in light of the compromise which shall form part of the decree.
9. The suit in fact in terms of order 23 Rule 3 CPC has been adjusted and decree has followed. When the parties have settled the interse dispute, there is no occasion for reopening the same so as to prolong the life of litigation.
10. This Court has power to see as to whether there has been improper exercise of jurisdiction. The Supervisory power under Section 115 of the Court enables to rectify irregularities, illegalities as shall be found on perusal of the record.
11. Both the order impugned as well as order dated 16.07.2007 on the face of it are illegal, have been passed while exceeding the jurisdiction. Suit having culminated in the decree based on compromise, re-opening the case on the basis of mistake viz-a-viz survey No. as 453 instead of 354 in the compromise deed would result in miscarriage of justice. Suit decreed in terms of the compromise shall be treated to have been decreed viz-a-viz subject matter of the suit i.e. 12 marlas of land covered under survey No. 354, khewat No. 19 situated at Khalmulla pursuant to which sale deed under challenge executed on 28.04.2003 registered on 28.04.2003 stand cancelled. Resultantly, order impugned is set aside.
12. Revision petition is disposed of as above.