Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
S. Sachdeva - Appellant
Versus
Ashok Kumar - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 39 of 2021, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 14366 of 2021
Decided On : 06-09-2021
Amendment - Decree - Sections 151 & 152 of CPC - The court discussed the amendment of a decree dated 2nd July, 2004, and the implications of the amendments directed by the trial court. The key legal provisions discussed were Sections 151 & 152 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), and the court emphasized the need for hearing the Plaintiff before making amendments that may affect vested rights.
Fact of the Case:
The petition challenged the amendment of a decree dated 2nd July, 2004, without notice to the judgment debtor. The decree was originally passed in a suit for cancellation of documents, which was dismissed for non-prosecution, and a counter claim for mandatory injunction was decreed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the amendments directed by the trial court were correction of typographical errors, but emphasized the need to consider any vested rights created, especially since the order was passed after 15 years without hearing the Plaintiff.
Issues: The issues included the lack of notice to the Plaintiff before the amendment, and the potential extension of the limitation period for filing execution of the decree due to the amendment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Plaintiff should be permitted to seek a clarification from the trial court regarding the date since when the amended decree sheet would come into effect, and emphasized the need for hearing the Plaintiff before making amendments that may affect vested rights.
Final Decision: The petition, along with pending applications, was disposed of with the Plaintiff permitted to seek a clarification from the trial court regarding the date since when the amended decree sheet would come into effect.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been done through video conferencing.
2. The present petition challenges the impugned order dated 10th April, 2019 by which a decree dated 2nd July 2004 was amended ex-parte, on an application by the decree holder, without notice to the judgement debtor. The decree was originally passed by the Civil Judge (West District), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter "Trial Court") in Misc. SCJ No. 28/2019 filed by the Defendant in Suit No. 502/2001 titled Smt. S. Sachdeva v. Ashok Kumar. The suit being Suit No. 502/2001 was for cancellation of documents titled as Sale Deed dated 17th July, 1997 executed by the Plaintiff in favour of the Defendant, was filed by Smt S.Sachdeva against Sh.Ashok Kumar. The suit itself was dismissed for non-prosecution. The Defendant had sought a mandatory injunction by way of the counter claim and the same was decreed on 2nd July 2004 in the following terms:
"Testimony of DW-1 on counter claim has remained unrebutted and unchallenged. In view of unrebutted testimony of DW-1 and the documents placed on record, I am of the opinion that defendant has been able to prove his counter claim and is entitled to relief claimed in counter claim. Suit of plaintiff has already been dismissed in default. Counter claim filed by the defendant qua mandatory injunction is decreed in favour of the defendant and the plaintiff is directed to restore the possession of the land measuring 16 bighas and 2 biswas Mustatil no 19, Kila no 25(0-2), Mustatil no. 20, Kila no 21(0-3), Mustatil no 21, Kila no 1/1 (4-9), (0-7), Mustatil no. 22, Kila no. 5 (3-6), 6(3-6), 15(4-9) situated within the revenue estate of village Smalkha Tehsil Vasant Vihar, New Delhi."
3. The decree sheet that was issued pursuant to the said decree dated 2nd July, 2004 reads as under:
"Claim for cancellation of documents titled as sale deed dated 17.7.97 executed by Plaintiff in favour of the Defendant.
Plaint presented on the 24.12.01
It is ordered that defendant has been able to prove his counter claim and is entitled to relief claimed in counter claim. Suit of plaintiff has already been dismissed in default. Counter claim filed by the defendant qua mandatory injunction is decreed in favour of the defendant and the plaintiff is directed to restore the possession of the land measuring 16 bighas and 2 biswas Mustatil no 19, Kila no. 25(0-2), Mustatil no. 20, Kila no 21(0-3), Mustatil no 21, Kila no 1/1 (4-9), (0-7), Mustatil no. 22, Kila no. 5 (3-6), 6(3-6), 15(4-9) situated within the revenue estate of village Smalkha Tehsil Vasant Vihar, New Delhi."
4. Thereafter, an application was moved by the decree-holder/Defendant sometime in February, 2019 under Sections 151 & 152 of CPC seeking correction of errors in the abovementioned decree sheet. In the said application, no notice was issued to the Plaintiff, against whom the decree was passed, and the impugned order dated 10th April, 2019 was passed by which the decree sheet has been amended. The amendment in the decree sheet is in the following form:
"It is ordered that the following corrections shall be carried out in the decree sheet:
1. At the top of the line where it is written that the decree is for suit for cancellation of documents, the same be corrected and shall read as "DECREE IN COUNTER CLAIM FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION"
2. The subject stating the claim for shall state as
"CLAIM FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION"
3. Instead of the words plaint presented on 24.12.2001, the following shall be substituted.
"COUNTER CLAIM PRESENTED ON 18.02.2002"
4. The portion of the decree sheet that states the description of the land to be restored as 16 bighas 2 biswas bearing mustatil no. 19, killa no. 25 (0-2), mustatil no. 20, killa no. 21 (0-3), mustatil no. 21, killa no. 1/1 (4-9), 1 (0-7), mustatil no.2 22, killa no. 5 (3-6), 6 (3-6), 15 (4-9), situated within revenue estate of village Samlakha, Tehsil Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, shall be substituted by
"16 BIGHAS 2 BISWAS BEARING MUSTATIL
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to consider vested rights and hear the affected party before making amendments to a decree, especially when the amendments may affect the ....
Amendments to decrees, even if clerical, must be made with fair notice and opportunity for affected parties to respond, ensuring due process rights are upheld.
A satisfied decree cannot be amended under Section 152 of the C.P.C. as it is considered dead for all practical purposes.
Point of Law : Mere nomenclature of anything would have any predominance unless the contents of the document if read together would justify the nomenclature.
The Decree Holders deserved to be put back in possession as relegating them to filing another suit for recovering possession would lead to multiplicity of litigations and would prejudice the Decree H....
Failure to provide notice in execution proceedings invalidates the sale of property under the amended decree.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
