The scope of section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited to the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes, errors arising from accidental slips or omissions, and errors apparent on the face of the record. Amendments that involve altering the plaint plan, introducing new prayers, or setting up a new and inconsistent case are not permissible under section 152.

Headnote:
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 152 - AMENDMENT OF DECREE - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - ERRORS COVERED - AMENDMENT OF PLAINT PLAN, PRAYERS, AND INTRODUCTION OF NEW CASE - NOT PERMISSIBLE - DELAY IN FILING APPLICATION - REJECTION OF AMENDMENT JUSTIFIED.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff sought mandatory and permanent injunctions against the defendants. The trial court granted the injunctions as prayed for, and the appellate court affirmed the decree. However, the decree lacked the dimensions and specifications necessary for its execution. The plaintiff filed an application under sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to amend the plaint, plaint plan, and decree. The lower court allowed some of the amendments but rejected others.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the amendments sought by the plaintiff were not permissible under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The errors covered by section 152 are clerical or arithmetical mistakes, errors arising from accidental slips or omissions, and errors apparent on the face of the record. The amendments sought by the plaintiff, however, involved altering the plaint plan, introducing new prayers, and setting up a new and inconsistent case. These amendments went beyond the scope of section 152 and could not be allowed.
Issues: 1. Whether the amendments sought by the plaintiff were permissible under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure? 2. Whether the lower court erred in allowing some of the amendments and rejecting others?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles in reaching its decision: * Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows the court to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes, errors arising from accidental slips or omissions, and errors apparent on the face of the record. * The amendments sought by the plaintiff involved altering the plaint plan, introducing new prayers, and setting up a new and inconsistent case. These amendments went beyond the scope of section 152 and could not be allowed. * The lower court erred in allowing some of the amendments and rejecting others. The court should have rejected all of the amendments sought by the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the lower court allowing the amendments and confirmed the order rejecting the amendments. The civil revision petition was dismissed with costs.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision petition filed under section 115, Civil Procedure code, against the order in LA. No. 1517 of 1973 in A. S. No. 102 of 1967 on the file of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenali. The appeal, A. S. No. 102 of 1967 was against the decree and judgment in O. S. No. 136 of 1964. The plaintiff in that suit sought certain mandatory and permanent injunctions against the defendants. The two injunctions sought were granted by the trial court as prayed for. The defendant s appeal, A. S. No. 102 of 1967 was dismissed on 5th December, 1970. The decree when sought to be executed could not be executed, as the decree lacked the dimensions etc. which are very necessary before the mandatory injunction granted could be executed. The plaintiff thereupon filed LA. No. 1517 of 1973 in A. S. No. 102 of 1967 under sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also under Order 6, rule 17 praying that the body of the plaint, the prayer portion in the plaint, the plaint plan and the decree of the Court passed in A. S. No, 102 of 1967 should be amended. The application for amendment was opposed by the respondents-defendants. By its order, dated 26th Jure, 1974, the lower court partly allowed the petition for amendment and refused relief in certain other respects. The petitioner-plaintiff had preferred the revision seeking to set aside the order of the Court below in so far as the reliefs by way of amendment were refused to him. The defendants have not preferred any revision petition.

( 2 ) THE decree passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court, in so far as the manandatory injunctions are concerned is as follows :-" 1. That the defendants 1 and 2 be and hereby are directed by a mandatory injunction to reinstate the A A1 b B1 channel to its former dimensions as shown, in the plaint plan and also to restore the bund B. C. to its former dimensions as per the plaint plan there to attached. "in. the petition filed, for amendment, the affidavit states that the plaintiff has mentioned in paragraph 4 of the plaint at page 4 that the width of the channel a Al B Bl is one yard in width including both the bunds, but due to mistake in the relief portion he has not mentioned its width viz. , one yard. In the prayer portion he merely prayed for restoration of the channel to its former dimensions. The width of the suit channel mentioned in the plaint was not disputed either in the written statement or in the evidence adduced on behalf of the defendants. Hence it was that the decree did not mention anything about the width. It is further stated that the width of the A Al b Bl channel is one yard from the middle of the northern bund A B to the middle of the southern bund A1 B1. I may at once state that this is quite contrary to the case as originally stated in the plaint. What was stated in. the plaint is that A A1 b B1 is one yard in width including both the bunds, while the amendment now sought is that the one yard width is from the middle of the northern, bund A B to the middle of the southern bund Al Bl. Another amendment which is sought in the petition, is with reference to the plaint plan, The plan which is attached to the decree shows that while Al Bl the southern boundary of the channel is entirely within 2nd defendant s land marked Z, the northern bund A B of the channel is shown to be in the land of one Narayya, who is not impleaded as a defendant in the suit. In the application for amendment, it is stated that the bund A B was never situated in Narayya s land and it is purely due to mistake that the A B land representing the northern bund was shown in the plaint plan, in Narayya s land. This is a mistake which occurred by inadvertance. It was, therefore, prayed that the plaint plan showing the A B bund should be shown to be in the z plot belonging to the 2nd defendant. The third prayer in the petition is with regard to the width of the B G bund which under the decree has to be restored to its

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1975 Supreme(AP) 200

Andhra Pradesh High CourtJudges : A.V.KRISHNA RAOVemura Ramasubbayya - AppellantVersusBollu Sarojini - RespondentDecided On : 10-09-75

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.V.KRISHNA RAO
Vemura Ramasubbayya - Appellant
Versus
Bollu Sarojini - Respondent
Decided On : 10-09-75