JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Heard learned Advocates for the parties. The petitioner challenges the order dated 31-8-1994 by which the District Judge, Raigad has dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. By application under section 152 of Code of Civil Procedure, it was sought to be contended by the petitioner that after passing of the award by the Land Acquisition Officer under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as "the said Act"), the Government had granted ex gratia payment of Rs. 14,353.75 paise to the respondents. However, while enhancing the compensation in the reference case under section 18 of the said Act and while calculating the final figure of the amount of compensation payable to the respondent on account of such enhancement being granted, the Reference Court did not give credit to the said ex gratia amount already paid to the respondent, and that, therefore, the award passed by the reference Court needs to be amended giving credit to the said amount of ex gratia payment.

3. Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code envisages correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from the accidental slip or omission. This section clearly reveals the settled principles of law that the act of Court should prejudice none and that the courts are duty bound to see to it that their records are true and represent correct state of affairs. Order XX, Rule 4 of C.P.C., requires judgment to contain a concise statement of case, point for determination, the decision thereon and reason for such decision. Further, Rule 5 thereof warrants the Court to give finding for decision on each issue with reasons. Rule 6(1) thereof specifically provides that the decree shall agree with the judgment and shall specify the relief granted or other determination of the suit. Being so, if the decree is not found to be in conformity with the judgment, certainly it would be the duty of the Court to correct and/or amend such decree to bring it in conformity with the judgment.

4. As far as the judgment is concerned, it can be corrected under the different eventualities specified in section 152 of C.P.C. As far as mistakes are concerned, they should be either clerical or arithmetical and as regards the errors, they can be on account of accidental slip or omission. To decide as to what mistakes or errors can be corrected under section 152 of C.P.C., the test is to examine whether the judgment as it stands represents the intention of the Judge at the time it was delivered and if it does, the alleged mistake or error cannot be said to be one which can be corrected in exercise of powers under section 152 of C.P.C. For example, in a suit for specific performance, though it is decreed in favour of the plaintiff, but the Court omits to fix the period within which the plaintiffs is required to pay the balance of consideration price and get the conveyance executed by the defendant, then in such a case certainly the Court having been moved for an appropriate order in that regard can certainly in exercise of powers under section 152 of C.P.C., amend the judgment and decree by fixing the period or date for the same vide (Firozshaw v. State)1, reported in A.I.R. 1957 Madhya Bharat 50. Likewise, if a Court awards interest as claimed by the plaintiff; however, while calculating the amount in that regard refers to a wrong figure as the principal amount and in fact on which the interest is not claimed by the plaintiffs, certainly such an error can be considered as being arithmetical mistake vide (Vallabhaneni Vimalamba v. Ghanta Ratnamma and another)2, reported in A.I.R. 1966 Andhra Pradesh 26.

5. The powers bestowed upon the Civil Courts under section 152 of C.P.C. cannot be exercised to correct omissions, however erroneous which are intentional either in the sense that the Court meant to omit which was omitted or because they did not arise for consideration

Click Here to Read the rest of this document