2010 C L C 1462
[Quetta]
Before Jamal Khan Mandokhail, J
ABDUL SATTAR and 10 others ---Petitioners
Versus
Haji FATEH KHAN and 6 others ---Respondents
Civil Revision No.400 of 2010, decided on 29th June, 2010.
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---
----O. XX, R.6, Ss. 2(2) & 152 ---Clarification of decree ---Application for ---Contents o f
decree ---Suit having finally been decreed by the Trial Court in favour of plaintiffs, judgment
debtors filed application under S.152, C.P.C. for clarification of decree passed in favour of
the decree -holders ---Said application had been accepted and clari fication of decree ordered ---
Validity ---While passing a decree, there should be formal expression of adjudication, which
must be precise and deliberate ---Under Order XX, R.6, C.P.C. the decree would agree with
the judgment and should contain particulars of the claim; and also to specify clearly the relief
granted ---Decree and judgment were separate and distinct documents and it was a decree that
had to be executed ---Decree should be self -contained and capable of execution, without
reference to any other doc ument ---Under S.152, C.P. C., where the two documents, did not
agree the court could correct the decree and also had inherent power to bring them in
consonance with each other --- While exercising powers under S.152, C.P.C. for
correction/amendment in the d ecree, the court had together material from the judgment ---In
the present case, the Trial Court, while deciding the issue of relief, had given explanation, but
in decree, no explanation of the rights of the parties had been specified --Apparently, the
decre e before amendment/clarification was not clear and was ambiguous, as such was not
executable ---By making the necessary clarification in the decree in accordance with S.152,
C.P.C., no illegality or irregularity had been committed by the Trial Court ---After
clarification the decree had become absolutely in consonance with the judgment passed by
the Trial Court and had become executable ---Impugned order, was upheld, in circumstances.
Abdul Ghani Mashwani for Petitioners.
Naeem Akhtar Afghan for Respond ents.
Date of hearing: 10th June, 2010.
JUDGMENT
JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, J. ---Briefly stated facts of the case are that, a suit was
filed by petitioners against respondents, which was decreed in favour of petitioners by means
of judgement - and decr ee passed by Qazi Dasht, on 18 -07-2009. Since no appeal has been
filed, as such, it attained finality.
The respondents have filed an application under section 152 of Civil Procedure Code for
clarification of the relief granted to the decree -holder. The a pplication was contested by
petitioners/decree -holder alleging therein that the same is not in accordance with provisions
of section 152 of C.P.C., as such requested for dismissal of the same.
The trial Court, after hearing the parties, has accepted the application and ordered
clarification of the decree by means of order dated 20 -08-2009, hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the trial Court, after pronouncement of
judgment and decree was seized to interfere in the decr ee. Since no clerical or arithmetical
defect or error has been point out in the decree by the applicant, therefore, no amendment,
alteration or clarification could be made. According to him, the trial Court has failed to
consider such aspect of the case an d has passed an order contrary to law.
3. Learned counsel for respondents has vehemently opposed the contention and has stated
that the decree follows the judgment, therefore, the relief granted to any party should have
been mentioned in it. Since the ea rlier decree was not exhaustive, as such, was not capable of
execution, therefore, its clarification was sought, which was very much within jurisdiction of
the trial Court in view of section of 152 of C.P.C.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the partie s and perused the record. Before going to discuss
the merits in detail, it would be appropriate to go through the definition of decree, as
mentioned in sub clause (2) of section 2 of C.P.C., which is reproduced herein below:
(2) "decree" means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards
the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to
all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or
final. It shall be deeme d to include the rejection of a plaint (the determination of any
question within section 144, and an order under rules 60, 98, 99, 101 or 103 of Order
XXI) but shall not include: --
(a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from order, o r
(b) any order of dismissal for default.
Explanation .--A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken
before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication
completely disposes of the suit. It may partly p reliminary and partly final.
Perusal of above definition shows that it is the decree, which is -to be executed and not the
judgment. While passing a decree, there should be formal expression of the adjudication, it
must be precised and deliberate. Moreove r, as per Order XX Rule 6, C.P.C., the decree shall
agree with the judgement and should contain particulars of the claim and also to specify
clearly the relief granted. The decree and judgment are separate and distinct documents, it is a
decree that has to be executed, and as such, it should agree with and be in accordance with
the judgment, therefore, it should be self -contained and capable of execution, without
reference to any other documents. Under section 152 of C.P.C., where the two documents do
not a gree, the Court can correct the decree and also has inherent power to bring them in
consonance with each other. Thus, while exercising powers under section 152 of C.P.C., for
correction/amendment in the decree, the Court has to gather material from the jud gment.
In present case, the trial Court, while deciding the issue of relief, has given explanation, but
in decree, no explanation of the rights of the parties have been specified. Apparently, the
decree before amendment/ clarification was not clear or wa s ambiguous, as such, was not
executable. By making the necessary clarification in the decree in accordance with the above
stated provisions of law, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the trial Court.
After clarification, the decree has no w become absolutely in consonance with the judgment
passed by the trial Court, therefore, the same has now become executable.
5. Thus, in view of what has been stated and discussed hereinabove, the petition, being
meritless, is dismissed and the order im pugned dated 18 -7-2009, passed by Qazi, Dasht, is
hereby upheld.
H.B.T./79/Q Petition dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.