NOORA vs MUHAMMAD
The petitioner, Noora, sought special leave to appeal against a High Court order that allowed the respondent, Muhammad, to amend a decree. The respondent had previously obtained a decree declaring him the sole heir of Mst. Allah Rakhi regarding her property. However, due to inadvertence, certain khasra numbers were omitted from the property description in the original decree. The trial court initially dismissed the respondent's application to amend the decree to include these omitted properties, but the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, set aside that dismissal and remanded the matter to the trial court for reconsideration. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, reasoning that the order achieved substantial justice between the parties. The Court held that where a plaintiff has been declared the sole heir of a deceased's entire estate, it is eminently just and fair to allow for the correction of a decree if specific property details were omitted by inadvertence. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's direction to the trial court to entertain the amendment application.
- Can a court allow the amendment of a decree to include property details omitted by inadvertence?
- Is it permissible for a High Court to remand a case to the trial court for the correction of a decree?
- Does the correction of a decree to reflect the true extent of an inheritance constitute substantial justice?
1. S. A. RAHMAN, J.-In this case the respondent Muhammad was successful in obtaining a decree to the effect that he was the sole heir of one Mst. Allah Rakhi in respect of the property left by her.
2. Later on, he discovered that in the description of the property of Mst. Allah Rakhi, he had omitted reference to certain khasra numbers. Then applied for amendment of the decree, to have the omitted khasra numbers included. His petition was dismissed, but he succeeded in obtaining relief in revision in the High Court. Noora, who was the contesting defendant in the suit, now seeks special leave to appeal from the order of the High Court.
3. The order passed by the High Court does substantial justice between the parties. The decision of the trial Court originally was that Muhammad respondent was the sole heir of Mst. Allah Rakhi in respect of all her property. If, by inadvertence, in the description of the property thus left by her, the plaintiff-respon--dent failed to mention certain properties, it was eminently just and fair that he should have b--en allowed to apply for correction of the decree. The High Court has remanded the case to the trial Court, with a direction that the application for amendment may be entertained and after obtaining sufficient particulars of the property involved, from the respondent may pass orders in accordance with law. No exception in law can be taken to this order. We therefore, dismiss the petition.
Cited by 1 case
- SARWAR KHAN vs MIR ALI AND 10 OTHERS 1980 CLC 110