Court's Inherent Power Under S.151 & S.152 CPC Can Correct Party's Mistake in Plaint to Prevent 'Unenforceable' Decree: Orissa High Court - 2025-08-13

Orissa High Court Upholds Correction of Decree, Citing Inherent Powers to Prevent Injustice

CUTTACK, ORISSA – In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court has held that a court can exercise its powers under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to correct an accidental error in a decree, even if the mistake originated in the plaintiff's own pleadings. Justice Sashikanta Mishra, while dismissing a petition challenging such a correction, emphasized that the judiciary's primary duty is to prevent its decrees from becoming unenforceable and to ensure the ends of justice are met.

The court reinforced the principle that procedural technicalities should not be used to deprive a successful litigant of the "fruits of the decree," especially when the error is palpable and acknowledged by all parties.

Background of the Case

The case, Belamati Digal vs Pravabati Nayak , stemmed from a property suit (C.S. No. 29 of 2023) where the plaintiffs sought a declaration of their title. In their plaint, the plaintiffs mistakenly described the suit property as being located in "Mouza Raikia" instead of the correct "Mouza Piserama."

Despite this error, the suit proceeded, and crucially, the defendants (the current petitioners) admitted in their written statement and during witness testimony that the property was indeed situated in "Mouza Piserama." The official Record of Rights (ROR) also confirmed this. The trial court decreed the suit in the plaintiffs' favor on March 28, 2024.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed an application under Section 152 of the CPC to correct the name of the Mouza in the judgment and decree. The trial court allowed the correction, prompting the defendants to challenge this order in the High Court.

Arguments in the High Court

Petitioners' Arguments: Mr. A.K. Mishra, representing the petitioners (defendants), argued that Section 152 CPC is strictly for correcting clerical or arithmetical errors made by the court, not mistakes made by the litigants in their own pleadings. He contended that the plaintiffs' only remedy was to amend the plaint before the trial concluded. Citing precedents like Netrananda Dalai v. Ratnabati Nayak , he asserted that the trial court had overstepped its jurisdiction.

Respondents' Arguments: Conversely, Mr. S.K. Mishra, counsel for the respondents (plaintiffs), argued that the error was an undisputed slip. Since the defendants had admitted the correct location in their pleadings and evidence, there was no controversy or prejudice. He submitted that allowing the error to stand would render the decree unenforceable. He relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Niyamat Ali Molla v. Sonargon Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. and Ors. , which advocates for a broader, less pedantic interpretation of Section 152.

High Court's Analysis and Ruling

Justice Sashikanta Mishra meticulously analyzed the scope of judicial power to correct errors post-judgment. While acknowledging the Orissa High Court precedents cited by the petitioners, the Court found the Supreme Court's reasoning in Niyamat Ali Molla to be more applicable to the facts at hand.

The Court extracted pivotal observations from precedents, highlighting that Section 152 is not limited to the court's own slips and can extend to "an accidental slip or omission traceable to the conduct of the parties themselves," provided the correction does not involve resolving a disputed question of fact.

In a key excerpt from the judgment, the Court observed:

"In other words, the judgment and decree was passed in respect of the property situate in Mouza Piserama and not Raikia. In fact it is nobody’s case that any such property corresponding to the particulars mentioned in the schedule actually situates in Mouza Raikia. Had the decree been passed mentioning the suit property as being situate in Mouza Raikia, it would tantamount to an un-enforceable decree, which obviously cannot be countenanced in law."

The Court further invoked the inherent powers vested under Section 151 CPC and the legal maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no one). It reasoned that when a strict interpretation of a provision like Section 152 would lead to grave injustice, the court must use its inherent powers to provide a remedy.

Final Decision

Dismissing the petition, the High Court concluded that the trial court had acted correctly to prevent the decree from becoming a mere "paper decree." The judgment states:

"As between an unenforceable and the technical consideration of limitation on exercise of power under Section 152, the cause of former obviously has to be advanced. The Court below must therefore, be held to have rightly allowed the application for correction."

This decision clarifies that courts can, and should, intervene to rectify palpable errors that are admitted by all parties, ensuring that justice is not only pronounced but also practically achievable.