The court affirmed that amendments under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure are limited to clerical or arithmetical errors and do not extend to substantive changes affecting the merits of the case.

JUDGMENT :

N.J. JAMADAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. The petitioner – original defendant takes exception to an order dated 26^th October, 2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Barshi, on an application filed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”) for amendment in the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.204 of 1986, whereby the said application was allowed and paragraph No.2 of the judgment and operative part of the decree were ordered to be corrected.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts leading to this petition can be stated as under:

3.1 The respondent instituted a suit for recovery of possession of the properties bearing Block Nos.593 and 535 situated at Javalgaon, Vairag, Taluka Barshi and mesne profit. The suit properties were described as Block No.593 and Block No.535 with a suffix “1/2 share”. By a judgment and order dated 30th January, 1986, the learned Civil Judge was persuaded to dismiss the suit returning a finding that the defendant proved that he had perfected his title to the suit land by way of adverse possession.

3.2 Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No.204 of 1986. By a judgment and order dated 25^th September, 1990, the learned District Judge allowed the appeal and reversed the decree passed by the trial court. The learned District Judge directed as under:

“….. The defendant – respondent is directed to give possession of the lands bearing Block Nos.593 and 535 of village Javalgaon, Taluka Barshi to the plaintiff – appellant. For mesne profits, separate enquiry under 0.20 rule 12 (c) C.P.C. is directed.”

3.3 The defendant preferred second appeal being SA/618/1990. By an order dated 7^th February, 1991 this Court dismissed the second appeal opining that the judgment passed by the first Appellate Court did not suffer from any legal infirmity.

3.4 In the execution proceedings, the defendant filed an application contending that the decree was not executable. The plaintiff had instituted the suit for recovery of ½ portion of Block No.535 and Block No.593 and the decree passed by the First Appellate Court was for the entire Block Nos.593 and 535. Thus, the decree being a nullity, it was not executable. The execution proceedings were disposed of by an order dated 14^th September, 2015.

3.5 The plaintiff, thereafter, preferred an application to amend the judgment and decree, purportedly under Section 151 read with Section 152 of the Code. Two amendments were sought. Firstly, the area of Block No.593 was sought to be corrected to 1H. 05Are and, secondly, ½ portion was claimed out of Block No.535. The defendant resisted the application.

3.6 By the impugned order, the learned District Judge was persuaded to allow the application observing, inter alia, that the mistake in the operative part of the decree passed in RCA/204/1986 appeared to be an accidental error. If the judgment is read as a whole, the learned District Judge intended to pass a decree for possession in respect of entire Block No.593 and ½ portion of Block No.535. Inadvertently, in the operative part, the possession of Block Nos.593 and 535, as a whole, was ordered to be delivered. It was, therefore, necessary to correct the area in respect of Block No.593 and restrict the decree to the ½ portion of Block No.535. The learned District Judge directed as under:

“The defendant – respondent is directed to give possession of land admeasuring 1H 05R bearing B.No.593 and ½ share out of 2H 82R bearing B.No.535 of village Javalgaon, Taluka Barshi to the plaintiff – appellant.”

4. Being aggrieved, the defendant has invoked the writ jurisdiction.

5. Mr. Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged that the corrections in the decree directed to be carried out by the learned District Judge are clearly beyond the scope of amendment permissible under Section 152 of the Code. The learne