VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

( 1 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the Revisionist had filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,60,000/- and for mandatory injunction. This Suit was decreed by a Judgment dated 14. 5. 2001, the operative part of which reads thus:-

"in view of the above discussion, I hold that the plaintiff has successfully proved its case against the defendant. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in its favour and against the defendant. A decree for recovery of Rs. 1,60,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realisation of decretal amount is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Another decree for mandatory injunction is also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to return to the plaintiff the original cheque No. 910243 dated 16. 12. 1999 for Rs. 1,39,544/- drawn on State Bank of India, Jaipur. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. DECREE SHEET be drawn accordingly. File after necessary compliance be consigned to record room".

( 2 ) THE Decree Holder became aware of the fact that the cheque in respect of which the Defendant had been directed to be returned to the Plaintiff numbered 710243 and not 910243. The application for correcting the Decree had been filed which was rejected by the impugned Order dated 13. 2. 2003. The learned Additional District Judge hearing the Execution Case No. 31/2001 was of the view that no error in the Judgment had occurred since the number of the cheque had been erroneously stated in the Plaint itself. It is the common case of the parties that in respect of cheque No. 710243 dated 16. 12. 1999 proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act are pending. It is also the common case of the parties that no cheque bearing No. 910243 had been issued by either of the parties. Learned counsel for the Respondent states that the Decree was ex parte. However, no Appeal has been filed.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the Respondent relies on the decision in State of Punjab vs. Darshan Singh, (2004) 1 SCC 328=2003 AIR SCW 5488, wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court had observed as follows:-

"12. Section 152 provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. The exercise of this power contemplates the correction of mistakes by the court of its ministerial actions and does not contemplate passing of effective judicial orders after the judgment, decree or order. The settled position of law is that after the passing of the judgment, decree or order, the same becomes final subject to any further avenues of remedies provided in respect of the same and the very court or the tribunal cannot and, on mere change of view, is not entitled to vary the terms of the judgments, decrees and orders earlier passed except by means of review, if statutorily provided specifically therefor and subject to the conditions or limitations provided therein. The powers under Section 152 of the code are neither to be equated with the power of review nor can be said to be akin to review or even said to clothe the court concerned under the guise of invoking after the result of the judgment earlier rendered, in its entirety or any portion or part of it. The corrections contemplated are of correcting only accidental omissions or mistakes and not all omissions and mistakes which might have been committed by the court while passing the judgment, decree or order. The omission sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of Section 152 as if it is looking into it for the first time, for which the proper remedy for the aggrieved party, if at all, is to file an appeal or revision before the higher forum or review application before the very forum, subject to the limitations in respect of such review. It implies that the section cannot be pressed into service t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document