IMPORTANT POINT
The court permitted the amendment of a clerical error in a Lok Adalath award, emphasizing that such corrections do not challenge the award's validity and are necessary for justice.

ORDER :

U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.

1. Petitioners pray for permission to carry out the amendment in the description of the item of the property mentioned in Plaint-B schedule as R.S.No.595/B instead of R.S.No.595 and consequently to order for necessary correction in the description of Item No.3 of Award 'A' schedule, appended to the Award dated 06.12.2019 in the Lok Adalath case No.4129/2019 in the matter of O.S.No.64 of 2016 on the file of 2nd respondent.

2. Petitioners' case succinctly is thus:

(a) 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2nd petitioner, 3rd respondent is the husband of 4th respondent. 1st petitioner and 3rd respondent are brothers.

(b) While so, respondents 3 and 4 filed O.S.No.64/2016 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties and sought for allotting Plaint-A schedule to the plaintiffs and B-Schedule to the defendants in the suit and half share to each in plaint C-schedule property to both parties.

(c) Plaint-A schedule comprises of 4 items and one of the items i.e., Item No.1 in Plaint 'A' schedule is a godown in an extent of 820 Sq. Yds covered by R.S.No.595/B with Door No.16/105. Similarly, Plaint 'B' schedule is another godown in an extent of 824 Sq. Yds with door No.16/99 situated to the west of item No.1 of Plaint 'A' schedule.

(d) While so, pending suit both parties entered into a compromise in the suit and the same was recorded before the Lok Adalath, Vijayawada in Lok Adalath case No.4192/2019 and an award was passed on 06.12.2019. As per the terms of the award the entire suit claim and suit schedule properties were divided into two parts, namely Award 'A' schedule and Award 'B' schedule. Award 'A' schedule was allotted to the petitioners herein and Award 'B' schedule was allotted to respondents 3 and 4 herein.

(e) While so, Plaint 'B' schedule is shown as item No.3 of the award 'A' -schedule. The description of the said item No.3 was wrongly mentioned as R.S.No.595 instead of R.S.No.595/B in the plaint schedule as well as in the award, meaning thereby the sub-division number 'B' is missing in the plaint and in the award.

(f) While filing the suit respondents 3 and 4 failed to give correct description of the said property though in the title deeds the said item property was correctly mentioned as RS No.595/B only. The petitioners who were the defendants in the suit, unfortunately failed to notice the mistake in the above description of the property.

(g) The further case of the petitioners is that as per terms of the award, the award has to be registered within three months from the date of award. Subsequently IA No.492/2022 was filed to condone the delay in getting the award registered due to COVID-19 Pandemic conditions and order was passed on 15.07.2022 permitting to forward the document for registration. At that time, the petitioners noticed the error crept in the sub-division number 'B' in item No.3 of the award 'A' schedule. Petitioners filed an affidavit seeking for rectification of the sub-division number in the survey number. However, the trial Court refused to entertain the correction stating that the award dated 06.12.2019 is final and request made by the petitioners cannot be entertained.

Hence the writ petition.

3. Notice to respondents 3 and 4 served but they did not appear.

4. Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel received notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and opposed the writ petition.

5. Heard Sri P.V.A. Padmanabham, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that in the description of item No.3 in Award 'A' schedule which is corresponding to Item No.1 in Plaint "B' schedule, mistake was crept in which is neither willful nor wanton and if the said wrong description is allowed to continue, the petitioners will be put to much hardship in future while dealing with the said property which is a