The amendment of a decree must align with the original judgment and cannot be made without notice to affected parties, as it violates principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. B. D. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S. K. Goswami, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent.

2. This is an application filed by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 17.03.2021 passed in Petition No.226/2021 arising out of Title Execution Case No.02/2014 whereby the said application filed by the petitioner was rejected.

3. For the purpose of appreciating the facts which led to the filing of the petition being Petition No.226/2021 as well as the present application, it is relevant to take note of the brief facts of the instant proceedings. It is seen that the respondent herein along with one Apurba Adhikari had filed a suit being Title Suit No.29/1999 seeking recovery of possession, i.e. for declaration that the plaintiffs had right, title and interest over the suit property and for possession of the suit property described in Schedule-A and Schedule-B to the plaint by evicting the defendant and by demolishing the houses and structures standing thereon. The petitioner herein was the defendant No.25. It is seen from the judgment dated 12.03.2001 passed in Title Suit No.29/1999 and more particularly at paragraph No.4 that there are two Schedules to the plaint. Schedule-A was a plot of land admeasuring 1 bigha 2 kathas 10 lechas covered by Dag. No.557 of Khatian No.48 situated at Baladmari Bapujinagar under Revenue Circle Balijana in the district of Goalpara and the Schedule-B was a plot of land admeasuring 2 kathas 12 lechas covered by Dag No.68 and included in Patta No.300 of Goalpara Town (Chandina) within the Revenue Circle Balijana in the district of Goalpara. Most of the defendants in the said suit filed their written statement.

4. A further perusal of the said judgment dated 12.03.2001 would show that on the basis of the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed as many as 9 issues. Issue Nos.5 & 9 are of importance which reads as under:-

5. Whether the plaintiff No.1 has right, title to the suitproperty?

9. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs prayed for?”

5. The learned Trial Court while deciding the Issue No.5 after taking into account the evidence of the PW1 (plaintiff No.1) observed that the plaintiff No.1 had stated in the cross- examination that she had no claim over the ‘A’ Schedule land, and accordingly, decided the said Issue No.5 in favour of the plaintiffs. This aspect is reflected in the decision as regards Issue No.9 wherein the learned Trial Court observed that the plaintiff No.1 had right, title upon the ‘B’ plaint Schedule mentioned land. The relevant observation of the learned Trial Court in respect to Issue No.9 reads as under:-

“Accordingly, the plaintiff No.1 has right, title upon the ‘B’ plaint Schedule mentioned land, since the plaintiff No.1 has not claimed ‘A’ plaint Schedule described land”.

6. The learned Trial Court further declared that the plaintiff No.1 had right, title upon ‘B’ plaint Schedule described land, and as such, would be entitled to evict the defendants by demolishing the houses and structures standing thereon.

7. Pursuant to the said judgment dated 12.03.2001, a decree was prepared. The decree so prepared categorically mentioned inter-alia that the plaintiff No.1 had right, title and interest over the ‘B’ plaint Schedule described land and the plaintiff was entitled to evict the defendants by demolishing houses and structures standing thereof.

8. Subsequent thereto, in the year 2002, an application was filed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) by the decree holder stating inter-alia that there is a requirement for correction in the decree in as much as while preparing the decree, the land described in Schedule-A of the plaint was omitted by accidental slip for which execution in respect of ‘A’ Schedule land could not be executed. It was further stated a