Back
2007(7) Supreme 687
Supreme Court of india
S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
Niyamat Ali Molla — Petitioner
versus
Sonargon Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 4876 of 2007
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.10373 of 2006)
Decided on : 12-10-2007
(b)Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Sections 151 and 152 – Besides power u/s 152, courts also have general inherent powers – Courts also have duty to see that the records are true and present the correct state of affair – Such jurisdiction can be exercised to review its own judgment – A decree may, therefore, be corrected by the Court both in exercise of its power under Section 152 as also under Section 151 – The power, however, cannot be extended to the resolving of controversial points; the Court cannot correct errors anterior to the proceedings before it. (Paras 19 and 21)
(1967) 2 SCR 18; 30 Ch. 239 – Relied upon.
AIR 1952 Cal. 86 – Approved.
(c)Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 152 – When a decree had been drawn up by the High Court, the Court can take recourse to Section 152 of the Code. (Para 23)
AIR 2003 SC 371 – Relied upon.
(d)Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Sections 151 and 152 – No Court can modify, alter or add to the terms of its original judgment, decree or order – The statements contained in the body of the plaint sufficiently describing the suit lands – Only because some blanks in the schedule of the property have been left, the same, by itself, may not be a ground to deprive the respondents from the fruit of the decree – Appellant although choosing not to file any statement but examining himself as witness was in the full knowledge of the affairs – No interference in the impugned judgment required. (Paras 25, 26 and 28)
AIR 2003 SC 643; AIR 2003 SC 4179 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case :
Respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration and possession as also for damages. An ex-parte decree was passed against the appellant herein who was arrayed as defendant No.6 in the suit.
A decree was passed wherein again the same Schedule of Property was described as the property involved in the suit. The said decree indisputably has been affirmed up to Supreme Court.
An application for amendment of the plaint as also of the decree containing the Schedule describing the said property was, however, filed.
An objection was filed to the said application for amendment by the appellant.
The said objection of the appellant was rejected by the Executing Court. The said order has been upheld by the High Court.
Findings of the Court:
Appellant having examined himself as witness was in full knowledge of the affairs. Therefore petition for impleadment was rightly dismissed.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Key Points: - The judgment discusses Section 152 CPC power to correct clerical or accidental slips, with the principle actus curiae neminem gravabit. (!) - It elaborates that Sections 151 and 152 provide inherent powers to amend judgments/decrees but cannot be used to review or resolve controversial points or alter merits; corrections should reflect intended meaning, not re-litigate. (!) - The decision cites authority that a decree may be corrected to carry out the court’s meaning if the correction is necessary to reflect intention, while avoiding changes to the substantive terms of the judgment. (!) - It notes that corrections involving misdescription of property in pleadings/decrees raised by parties may or may not be permissible under Section 152, depending on whether it constitutes an accidental slip or an issue requiring relief under Specific Relief Act. (!) (!) - The Supreme Court in this case holds that amending the decree to insert correct Schedule/land descriptions is permissible only to reflect the court’s intended order and not to substitute one property for another; such corrections are limited and cannot address disputed questions. (!) (!) (!) - The decision emphasizes that amendments cannot be used to modify the terms of the original judgment; if the amendment affects the merits, remedies under appeal, revision, or specific relief must be used. (!) (!) - The appellant’s challenge to amendment of the plaint and decree was considered, with observations that where the correction aligns with the court’s evident intention and is inadvertent, Section 152 may be invoked, but not to resolve contested factual issues. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.—
1.Leave granted.
2.Respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration and possession as also for damages in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Baruipur, 24-Parganas (South) in the State of West Bengal. An ex-parte decree was passed against the appellant herein who was arrayed as defendant No.6 in the suit. In the plaint, the suit property was described as under :
“That within the township area 2.09 acres comprising of R.S. Dag Nos.340, 341, 342, 343 and 344 of Mouza Tegharia morefully described in the Schedule A hereunder written and hereinafter referred to as the suit property, is situated.”
3.Plaintiff claimed title over the suit property on the basis of purchases made under two registered deeds of conveyances dated 27.1.1968 comprising of 12 shares of Plot No.340, 341, 342 and 343 of Mouza Tegharia admeasuring 1.39 acres from defendant No.1 and his three sisters. However, in the Schedule of Property, described in the schedule to the plaint, it was stated :
“All that acres of land now developed for Housing Township appertaining to Rs.Dag No. under Khatian Nos. of Mouza Tegharia, J.L. No.6, lying and situate within Sonargaon Park, P.S. Sonarpore, District South 24 Parganas (South).”
4.A decree was passed wherein again the same Schedule of Property was described as the property involved in the suit. It was directed:
“The plaintiff do get a decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit property. It is declared that the plaintiff has right, title and interest in the suit property. Defendants are restrained by an order of permanent injunction from disturbing or interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property in any way or in any manner whatsoever. The other prayer of the plaintiff is refused in view of my discussion made in the body of judgment.”
5.Appellant herein did not file any written statement in the said suit. He, however, examined himself as a witness. He did not prefer any appeal against the said judgment and decree. The said decree indisputably has been affirmed upto this Court.
6.An application for amendment of the plaint as also of the decree containing the Schedule describing the said property was, however, filed on 27.6.2000, inter alia, stating :
“That both parties went on trial and adduced both oral and documentary evidence in respect of the suit property and there was never any dispute as to the identity of the suit of the suit property. That at the time of drafting of the plaint through inadvertence the total area of the Land, R.S. Plot Number and Khatian Number have not been mentioned in the Schedule of the Plaint through inadvertence. That it is an accidental error. That it is a clear case of misdescription of the suit property and no prejudice will be caused to the defendant if the plaint and the decree are amended at this stage.”
7.On the said averments, the proposal for amendment which was made is as under :
“In the Schedule of the Suit Property described in the plaint in the 1st line after the word All that the figure 2.09 shall be inserted. In the schedule of the suit property described in the plaint in the 2nd line after the word R.S. Dag Number the following plot number 340, 341, 342, 343 and 344 shall be inserted. In the schedule of the suit property described in the plaint in the 3rd line after the word Khatian Numbers following Khatian Number shall be inserted 80, 310, 83.”
8.An objection was filed to the said application for amendment by the appellant, inter alia, contending :
“Whereas after decree in the suit, plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 of CPC stating that the plaintiff claimed title on the basis of two deeds of conveyances by purchase from heir of Dilbahar Molla and Malekjan Bibi wife of Dolbahar Molla with the prayer to add different Schedule of property with a new case, which is not permissible in law. As such plaintiffs application is liable to be dismis
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
