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. (!) (!)

What is the scope of the court's power under Sections 151 and 152 CPC to amend or rectify a decree or judgment?

What are the limits and conditions for exercising inherent powers under Sections 151 and 152 CPC to correct clerical or accidental slips without altering the merits of the case?

What is the effect of amending a decree when the misdescription of property is involved and whether such amendments can substitute one property for another?