ORDER
Leave granted. 2. The respondents herein filed a suit for pre-emption of sale in favour of the appellants herein. In the said suit, in the body of the plaint, the Khewat number was given as 44 and Khasra number was given as 20/24. However, in the relief clause instead of Khewat No. 44, Khewat No. 4 was typed. Similarly, Khasra number was typed as 20/40 instead of 20/24. The said suit was decreed by the Trial Court. The appeal preferred by the appellants herein was dismissed. During the execution proceeding it was found that the decree contained Khewat No. 4 instead of 44 and Khasra No. 20/40 instead of 20/24. Under such circumstances, respondents moved an application before the Trial Court for correcting the mistake crept into in the decree. The Trial Court found that it was a clerical mistake and the same required to be corrected. Consequently, the decree was corrected. A revision filed against the said judgment was dismissed by the High Court. It is against the said judgment, the appellants are in appeal before us. 3. Learned Counsel, appearing for the appellants, urged that in view of Section 15(l)(b) of Haryana Amendment Act, 1995, the suit for pre-emption could not have been decreed. Learned Counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in Ramjilal and Others v. Ghisa Ram and Others, 1996 (7) SCC 507 in support thereof. This contention of the appellants' Counsel is not available now as the original decree was already attained finality. We, therefore, reject the arguments of learned Counsel for the appellants. 4. Learned Counsel then urged that amendment of decree sought by the respondent was not a case of a clerical mistake and therefore the Trial Court committed error in allowing the application for amendment. As stated above, the plaintiff-respondents in the plaint correctly mentioned the Khewat and Khasra numbers. However, by some mistake Khewat No. 4 was written instead of Khewat No. 44. Similarly, Khasra number was wrongly mentioned as 20/40 instead of 20/24 and this was obviously a clerical mistake. We are, therefore, in agreement with the view taken by the High Court. 5. Consequently, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.