1. Heard Mr. S.S. Dey, learned counsel and Ms. P.R. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also heard Mr. D.N. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of this revision petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 19.8.2002, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bongaigaon in Title Execution Case No. 1/02 by which the application filed under section 152, CPC read with section 151, CPC seeking correction of Dag No. as 963 instead of 960, was rejected.

3. Mrs. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner, questioning the validity and legality of the impugned order, has vehemently argued that the correction by way of amendment sought for under section 152, CPC was a clerical mistake as the Dag No. 960 was shown inadvertently in the decree and the same ought to have been recorded as Dag No. 963.

4. In support of her submission as regards the clerical or arithmetical mistake she has drawn attention of the court to the definition of clerical' as well as 'arithmetical' mistake as it appears in Black's Law Dictionary (7th edn.) wherein the clerical and arithmetical mistake have defined as under : -

'Mistake' means some unintentional act, omission, or error arising from ignorance, surprise, imposition or misplace confidence.

'Arithmetic' means concerning arithmetic, i.e., with the adding, multiplying etc., of numbers.

5. It is settled that an arithmetic mistake means a mistake of calculation while a clerical mistake is a mistake in writing or copying, etc.

6. In the light of the aforesaid definitions, it is contended by the learned counsel that it is a fit case for correcting the clerical mistake in Dag No. which was actually 963 and not 960. The same was being a clerical error and due to a typographical mistake, the figure was only shown as 960. If this correction/amendment under section 152, CPC was not allowed, according to her, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury and the entire decree passed in her favour in the instant Title Suit would be wholly frustrated. At least, according to her, in the interest of justice, the proposed correction may be allowed.

7. To bolster upon her submission she has referred to a decision of this court reported in 1988 (2) GLJ 298 (Sri Sailadhar Dutta v. Sri Kanai Dutta) wherein this court, in paragraph 11, held that if it was necessary for the ends of justice there was power available to the court to correct the clerical mistake under section 152, CPC and if necessary also under sections 151 and 153, CPC.

8. Supporting the impugned order, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent, has strenuously contended that the Dag number recorded as 960 in the decree cannot be said to a clerical error or arithmetical mistake at all so as to enable the petitioner to correct the same as per section 152, CPC. According to him, the sale deed which was the subject-matter of the suit itself depicted the Dag No. as 960 and on the basis of the said sale deed, the suit was filed by the plaintiff/ petitioner wherein in the Schedule to the plaint Dag number was mentioned as 960. Even the defendants also filed written statement denying the title of the plaintiff over the suit land referring to Dag as 960. Significantly, when the decree was prepared, no whisper was made for correction of Dag No. 960 and accordingly in terms of the decree shown as Dag No. 960, the said decree was put for execution.

9. In support of his submission, Mr. Bhattarcharjee has relied on the following judicial decisions : -

1. Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan v. Hari Prasad Bhuyan and Others, 2003 (1) SCC197; and

2. Bijay Kumar Saraogi v. State ofJharkhand, (2005) 7 SCC 748.

10. In Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan's case (supra), the Apex Court in paragraph -14 has held that section 152, CPC enables the court to vary its judgment so as to give effect to its meaning and intention by correcting any clerical and arithmetical mistake in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein eithe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document