2005 Supreme(Cal) 642

High Court Of Calcutta
Before Subhro Kamal Mukherjee And Rudrendra Nath Banerjee, JJ.
MINATI ENGINEERING WORKS - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
F. M. A. 355 Of 2002
Decided On : 09/27/2005

The Court has the jurisdiction to amend a decree under sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code to correct a typographical mistake in the judgment.

Headnote:

LIMITATION ACT - SECTION 5 - REVIEW OF JUDGMENT AND DECREE - ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE IN JUDGMENT - RATE OF INTEREST - CORRECTION - JURISDICTION OF COURT.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff-firm filed a money suit for realization of Rs. 6,36,196.87 paise, as price of valves of different sizes supplied by the plaintiff-firm upon acceptance of tender by the defendant, Bharat Cooking Coal Limited. The suit was decreed ex parte for Rs. 6,36,196.87 paise with interest at the rate of 22.25% per month till realization of decree. The judgment-debtors/respondents filed an application under section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code challenging the executibility of the decree passed in the said money suit. The said application was dismissed. Thereafter, the decree was transferred to the Court of the learned subordinate Judge, 1st Court at Dhanbad, Bihar, for execution and satisfaction of the decree. In the said Court, the judgment-debtors filed another application under section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, which was rejected. Thereafter, the judgment-debtors filed Revisional Application No. 314 of 1995 in the High Court at Patna before the Ranchi Bench and the High court dismissed the revisional application. Thereafter, the judgment-debtors/respondents filed yet another application under section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code before the Dhanbad court challenging the executibility of decree passed in the said money suit. On July 24, 1996, the said application under section 47 of the Civil Procedure code was allowed and the execution case was dismissed, inter alia, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Court passing the said money decree. The appellant/decree holder filed Revisional Application No. 400 of 1996 against the said order dated July 24, 1996, before the Ranchi Bench of the High Court at Patna; the High Court allowed the said revision on October 8, 1996. The respondents/judgment-debtors then moved the Supreme Court of India by filing a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 212 of 1997 against the said judgment and order of the High Court. On January 20, 1997 the Supreme court of India dismissed the special leave petition. The respondents/judgment-debtors then filed the review petition (Civil No. 742 of 1997) in the Supreme court of India on the ground, inter alia, that the interest at the rate of 22.25% per month was excessive. The Supreme Court of India dismissed the review petition on February 26, 1997. The respondents/judgment-debtors filed an application before the Supreme Court of India for clarification of the said order, which was, also, held not maintainable. The respondents/judgment-debtors, on February 24, 1998 filed a petition before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 3rd Court, Howrah under Order 47 Rule 1 read with section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code being misc. Case No. 11 of 1998 for review of the judgment and decree dated February 15, 1993 passed in the Money Suit No. 8 of 1991 along with a petition under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the trial Court was justified in allowing the petition under section 5 of the Limitation Act condoning the delay in filing the application under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil procedure Code for review of the decree dated February 15, 1993. The Court also held that the trial Court had jurisdiction to amend the decree under sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code and that the mistake in mentioning the rate of interest as 22.25% per month in the operative portion of the judgment was a typographical mistake which could be corrected.

Issues: 1. Whether the trial Court was justified in allowing the petition under section 5 of the Limitation Act condoning the delay in filing the application under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil procedure Code for review of the decree dated February 15, 1993. 2. Whether the trial Court had jurisdiction to amend the decree under sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code. 3. Whether the mistake in mentioning the rate of interest as 22.25% per month in the operative portion of the judgment was a typographical mistake which could be corrected.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the trial Court was justified in allowing the petition under section 5 of the Limitation Act condoning the delay in filing the application under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil procedure Code for review of the decree dated February 15, 1993, as the judgment-debtors were prevented by sufficient cause from filing the petition within the prescribed time limit. 2. The Court held that the trial Court had jurisdiction to amend the decree under sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code as the mistake in mentioning the rate of interest as 22.25% per month in the operative portion of the judgment was a typographical mistake. 3. The Court held that the mistake in mentioning the rate of interest as 22.25% per month in the operative portion of the judgment was a typographical mistake which could be corrected as it was an accidental slip or omission.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed both the revisional application and the miscellaneous appeal on contest and made no order as to costs.