Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
Shri Ajit Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Monk Trading Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – Respondents
CM(M) 1255 of 2023 & CM APPL. 40098 of 2023
Decided On : 07-08-2023
Rectification - Civil Suit - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151, Section 152 - The court allowed the rectification of the decree to reflect the names of the legal representatives of the deceased defendant and corrected a typographical error in the costs mentioned in the decree. The court found the corrections to be clerical in nature and within the scope of Section 152 of CPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order allowing rectification in the judgment and decree of a civil suit. The suit was decreed, and a decree of possession was passed against the defendants in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an application for rectification, which was allowed without notice to the defendants, as the corrections sought were clerical in nature. The petitioner, a legal heir of the deceased defendant, was aggrieved by certain observations in the impugned order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the corrections made by the Trial Court were clerical in nature and within the scope of Section 152 of CPC. The court also noted that the observations in the impugned order were based on the contents of a previous order and found no error in the operative portion of the impugned order. The court dismissed the petition and stated that the petitioner's application would be decided on its own merits by the Trial Court.
Issues: The issues involved the rectification of the decree to reflect the names of the legal representatives of the deceased defendant and the correction of a typographical error in the costs mentioned in the decree. The petitioner was aggrieved by certain observations in the impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi: The corrections made by the Trial Court were found to be clerical in nature and within the scope of Section 152 of CPC. The court also noted that the observations in the impugned order were based on the contents of a previous order and found no error in the operative portion of the impugned order.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and stated that the petitioner's application would be decided on its own merits by the Trial Court.
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 40097/2023 (For Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 1255/2023 & CM APPL. 40098/2023
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India impugns the order dated 05.11.2022 passed by the ADJ-06, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (`Trial Court') in Misc. DJ No. 606/2022, titled as `Monk Trading Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajbir & Ors.', whereby the Trial Court allowed the application filed by Respondent No. 1 for carrying out rectification in the judgement and decree dated 09.05.2022.
1.1. The Petitioner herein is the son of late Shri Rajbir Singh, who was the original defendant in the civil suit. In addition to the Petitioner herein, Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are also the legal heirs of late Shri. Rajbir Singh. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were already arrayed as parties to the civil suit in their individual capacity as Defendant Nos. 2 and 3.
2. Upon death of late Shri Rajbir Singh i.e., the original defendant No. 1, an application under Order XXII Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC'), was filed and vide order dated 01.11.2021, the Petitioner herein was impleaded as a party to the suit along with his other brothers and sisters. The relevant extract of the order dated 01.11.2021 reads as under:
"Record reveals that an application under Order 22 Rule 4 is pending for adjudication. It is stated in the application that defendant no.1 has expired, therefore, he wants to implead the LR's of the defendant no. 1 in the instant matter. It is stated by the Ld. Counsel for Manish that he does not have any objection qua the said application. Moreover, other LR's Sh. Ajit Singh and Smt. Meenakshi has been served in the present matter, however, none has appeared on behalf of them. Ld. Counsel for D-2 and D-3 does not have any objection qua the said application.
Hence, the present application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC read with Section 151 CPC stands allowed. The following LRs of the deceased defendant no.1 are impleaded as a party in the instant matter:
(1) Sh. Manoj Kumar (son) (already D-2)
(2) Sh. Satbir Singh (son) (already D-3)
(3) Sh. Manish Singh (son)
(4) Sh. Ajit Kumar (son)
(5) Smt. Meenakshi (daughter)
Sh. Manoj Kumar and Sh. Satbir Singh has already been impleaded as defendant no.2 and defendant no.3 at the filing of the present suit.
Amended memo of parties be filed on the next date of hearing. Be listed for final arguments on date already fixed i.e., 14.12.2021."
(Emphasis Supplied)
3. The suit was decreed on 09.05.2022 and a decree of possession was passed against the Defendants and in favour of the Respondent No.1 herein (i.e., the plaintiff).
4. The Respondent No.1 herein thereafter filed an application dated 30.09.2022 under Section 151 of CPC for carrying out rectification in the judgement and decree-sheet dated 09.05.2022. The said application was allowed vide impugned order dated 05.11.2022 without issuance of any notice to the defendants including the legal heirs of late Shri Rajbir Singh; as the corrections sought were clerical in nature.
5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that vide the impugned order dated 05.11.2022, the Trial Court permitted two corrections i.e.,
(i) the decree-sheet dated 09.05.2022 recorded in the name of late Shri Rajbir Singh was corrected to duly reflect the name of five (5) legal heirs of late Shri Rajbir Singh;
(ii) the decree-sheet originally recorded that the `cost of appeal' has been awarded to the Respondent No. 1; however, it was amended to record that it is the `cost of the suit' which has been awarded.
5.1. He states that he is not aggrieved by the aforesaid corrections carried out in the decree. He states that however, the Petitioner is aggrieved with the impugned order dated 05.11.2022 only to the extent that it records "the other LRs namely Shri Ajeet Kumar and Ms. Meenakshi did not appear despite service".
5.2. He states that it
The corrections made by the Trial Court were found to be clerical in nature and within the scope of Section 152 of CPC.
Amendment of judgment and decree – Power under Section 152 of CPC also extends to error committed by parties in their pleadings.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 152 – Correction in decree – An unintentional mistake of court which may prejudice cause of any party, must be rectified – If unintentional mistakes could be rect....
Correction of arithmetical and typographical errors in decree can be done even without amending plaint schedule.
Correction of arithmetical and typographical errors in decree can be done even without amending plaint schedule.
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
