( 2026:JHHC:24400 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 409 of 2024 ------ 1. Smt. Preeti Jha, aged about 77 years, w/o late Priya Ranjan Jha 2. Pankaj Kumar Jha, aged about 56 years, s/o late Priya Ranjan Jha 3. Dr. Niraj Kumar Jha, aged about 54 years, s/o late Priya Ranjan Jha 4. Manish Kumar Jha, aged about 53 years, s/o late Priya Ranjan Jha 5. Amit Kumar Jha, aged about 47 years, s/o late Priya Ranjan Jha 6. Raj Ranjan Jha, aged about 71 years, s/o late Subansh Jha 7. Chitranjan Jha @ Chitranjan Kumar Jha, aged about 70 years, s/o late Subansh Jha 8. Krishnand Jha @ Krishnarayan Jha @ Krishna Ranjan Jha, aged about 64 years, s/o late Subansh Jha 9. Sudha Jha, aged about 67 years, w/o late Rajani Ranjan Jha 10. Tulika Jha, aged about 37 years, d/o late Rajani Ranjan Jha 11. Ankita Jha @ Ankija Jha, aged about 35 years, d/o late Rajani Ranjan Jha 12. Kumar Ankur, aged about 35 years, s/o late Rajani Ranjan Jha All residents of Deputy Para, Dak Bungalow Road, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.-Lalpur, Dist.-Ranchi … Petitioners Versus Union of India through Defence Estate Officer, Jharkhand, Orissa and Bihar, JOB Circle, Danapur Cantt., P.O. & P.S.- Danapur, Dist.-Patna … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Himanshu Kr. Mehta, Advocate : Ms. Manjushri Patra, Advocate : Mr. Vidhan Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGC ------ Order No.10 Dated- 14.08.2026 Heard the parties. This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 151 read with Section 152 of Code of Civil Procedure for amendment /clarification of the order dated 05.05.2023 passed in C.M.P. No. 127 of 2022 passed in connection with the decree dated 12.07.2023 arising out of F.A. No. 88 of 2009. The brief fact of the case is that vide the judgment dated 05.08.2016; F.A. No. 88 of 2009 was allowed partly. The said judgment has been affirmed as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dismissed the connected S.L.P. vide Diary No. 11644 of 2017. The decree prepared in the said F.A. No. 88 of 2009 was defective. The petitioners and their predecessor-in-interest filed C.M.P. No. 220 of 2017 and in terms of the order dated 11.12.2018 a fresh decree was prepared. The fresh said decree was also defective. The petitioners filed C.M.P. No. 306 of 2020 whereas Union of India filed C.M.P. No. 127 of 2022 for correction of the decree. The C.M.P. No. 127 of 2022 has been disposed of vide order dated 05.05.2023. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that consequent upon the order dated 05.05.2023 a decree was prepared on 12.07.2023 and the decree dated 12.07.2023 is also not correct because 60% of the amount deposited in the year 2015 by Union of India in fixed deposit has not been paid in-spite of the judgment passed in F.A. No. 88 of 2009. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the amount deposited by way of fixed deposit is the amount of the petitioners and therefore, the interest accrued thereon are of the petitioners but the same has not been taken care of by the decree prepared. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is clerical and arithmetical mistake in the decree, hence, this civil miscellaneous petition has been filed. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Joint Registrar (Judicial) has not taken care of the objection raised in writing before signing of the decree to the Joint Registrar (Judicial) so, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 05.05.2023 passed by this Court upon which decree has been prepared, this civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for clarification of the order dated 05.05.2023. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this Court can sit in appeal by modifying its own judgment; which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hand submits that the contention of the petitioners that this Court can sit in appeal upon its own judgment passed in F.A. No. 88 of 2009 dated 05.08.2016 which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is a fallacious submission. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that there is no way this Court can sit in appeal over its own judgment or orders. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that this civil miscellaneous petition has been filed in guise of an appeal against the order dated 05.05.2023 passed by this Court itself; which is not maintainable in law moreover when there is no infirmity in the said order and if the petitioners are dissatisfied with the order dated 05.05.2023 in C.M.P. No. 127 of 2022, the remedy lies in approaching any superior court. Hence, it is submitted that this civil miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that High Court cannot sit in appeal over its own judgment passed in First Appeal more so, when the Special Leave Petition filed against the said judgment passed in the said First Appeal has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It is also pertinent to mention here that if any party is dissatisfied or aggrieved by any order passed by a High Court in exercise of the power under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the remedy lies elsewhere but certainly, not before the High Court. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with its own judgment passed in F.A. No. 88 of 2009 dated 05.08.2016 or the order dated 05.05.2023 passed in C.M.P. No. 127 of 2022 as it lacks jurisdiction to sit in appeal upon its own judgment or order. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 14.08.2026 AFR-Gunjan-