Abdul Sattar v. Fateh Khan,
Bench: Jamal Khan Mandokhail
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a dispute over how to properly finalize a court decree after a lawsuit had already been decided. The plaintiffs had won their case in the trial court, and since no one appealed, that decision became final. Later, the losing party (the judgment debtors) noticed that the written decree did not clearly spell out what relief the winning party was actually entitled to, even though the judgment itself had explained it. They asked the trial court to clarify the decree under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the trial court agreed, adding the missing details so the decree matched the judgment. The original winning party then challenged this clarification, arguing the trial court had no power to alter the decree after it was issued.
The Balochistan High Court disagreed and upheld the clarification. It explained that a judgment and a decree are two different documents, and it is the decree that must be enforced. Therefore a decree needs to be complete and precise on its own, without needing to refer back to the judgment. If a decree does not match the judgment or is unclear, courts have the power under Section 152 CPC to correct it and bring it in line with the judgment. Since the original decree lacked necessary details making it hard to enforce, the correction was proper. This case clarifies that courts can fix incomplete or ambiguous decrees so they accurately reflect the judgment and can be executed.
یہ مقدمہ اس تنازع سے متعلق تھا کہ ایک مقدمہ فیصل ہو جانے کے بعد عدالتی ڈگری کو درست طریقے سے کیسے حتمی شکل دی جائے۔ مدعیان نے ٹرائل کورٹ میں اپنا مقدمہ جیت لیا تھا، اور چونکہ کسی نے اس فیصلے کے خلاف اپیل نہیں کی، اس لیے وہ فیصلہ حتمی ہو گیا۔ بعد میں، ہارنے والے فریق (جج ڈیبٹرز) نے محسوس کیا کہ تحریری ڈگری میں یہ واضح طور پر بیان نہیں کیا گیا تھا کہ جیتنے والے فریق کو دراصل کیا ریلیف ملنا چاہیے تھا، حالانکہ فیصلے میں یہ بات وضاحت سے بیان کی گئی تھی۔ انہوں نے ٹرائل کورٹ سے درخواست کی کہ ضابطہ دیوانی کی دفعہ 152 کے تحت ڈگری کی وضاحت کی جائے، اور ٹرائل کورٹ نے اس درخواست کو منظور کرتے ہوئے وہ تفصیلات شامل کر دیں جو ڈگری میں موجود نہیں تھیں، تاکہ ڈگری فیصلے کے مطابق ہو جائے۔ اصل جیتنے والے فریق نے اس وضاحت کو چیلنج کیا، اور دلیل دی کہ ٹرائل
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
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.