Back
1997 Supreme(Pat) 574
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.N.Jha, J.
Usha Devi
Versus
Rajbanshi Rai
Civil Revision No. 1392 of 1996 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 11, 1997
Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows for the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission.
Headnote:
Amendment - Civil Procedure - The court allowed the plaintiff's application for correction of the village name in the decree under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the wrong village had been mentioned in the plaint resulting in a mistake in the decree.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a petition seeking correction of the village name in the decree under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was initially rejected by the Court. The plaintiff then filed a similar application under Section 151 of the Code, which was also rejected. The plaintiff wanted to mention village Shobhapur in place of Maulnapur, as the wrong village had been mentioned in the plaint, leading to the mistake in the decree.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the case fell within the purview of Section 152 of the Code and directed the Court below to pass a fresh order, setting aside the previous orders.
Issues: The issues involved the correction of the village name in the decree and the applicability of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 152 of the Code, which allowed for the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission.
Final Decision: The application for correction was allowed, and the Court directed the lower court to pass a fresh order.
S.N.Jha, J.
1. This civil revision is by the plaintiff. He wanted correction as regards the name of the village in the decree. Petition filed to that effect under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected by the Court below earlier on 6.9.95. He then filed similar application under Sec. 151 of the Code. The petition has been rejected by the impugned order.
2. From the petition filed in the Court below seeking amendment it appears that the petitioner wanted to mention village Shobhapur in place of Maulnapur. According to him wrong village had been mentioned in the plaint, as a result of which the mistake occurred in the decree.
3. I am satisfied that the case comes within the purview of Sec. 152 of the Code. The Court below, therefore, ought to have allowed the amendment at the first instance itself. The orders dated 6.9.95 and 24.4.96 are set aside. The Court below is directed to pass fresh order.
4. The application is allowed.
