The direction for compounding interest at 12% was intentional and not subject to amendment under Section 152, highlighting the distinction between inherent powers and specific provisions of the law.

ORDER

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

The revision petitioners are the defendants in a suit for partition. They assail the correctness of an order passed by the learned Sub Judge rejecting two applications filed by them under Sections 151 , 152, and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code) seeking amendment of the final judgment and decree to delete the direction for compounding interest at the rate of 12% on past and future profits.

2. In the preliminary decree, the defendants were directed to pay past and future profits. However, in the final decree, an additional direction was issued entitling the plaintiffs to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on such profits, with the interest calculated for one year being added to the principal for the succeeding year. Contending that this direction was impermissible, the revision petitioners filed two applications under Sections 151 , 152, and 153 of the Code seeking amendment of the final judgment and decree. The learned Sub Judge dismissed the applications, holding that the impugned clause in the final decree was passed on merits and, therefore, was not amenable to correction under the aforesaid provisions. It was further held that an application under those provisions cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal, revision, or review.

3. When the revision petitions came up for hearing, the learned Single Judge of this Court found that two other Single Benches of this Court had taken divergent views on the scope of the jurisdiction of civil courts under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code. In view of the said conflict, the matters were referred to a Division Bench for authoritative consideration. The learned Single Judge noted that in Velayudhan Nair v. Kerala K.Y.Kuries (P) Ltd. (1987 (2) KLT 449), this Court held as follows:

“ Section 151 of the Code can have application only when no other remedy is available according to the existing provision of law. In exercise of the inherent powers, the court cannot override general principles of law.

x x x x x

A party who slept over his rights and allowed a wrong decree to become final by not filing an appeal, revision or review cannot approach the court under S.151 to rectify the wrong on the ground that the case is hard.”

The Court also observed that in George v. Federal Bank Ltd. 2000 (1) KLT 715 , a learned Single Judge held that where the plaintiff was legally entitled only to interest at the rate of 11.5% per annum, the award of interest at the rate of 17.25% per annum would seriously prejudice the defendant. It was therefore held that, unless such an order was corrected under Section 152 of the Code, it would result in undue hardship and irreparable injury to the defendant. In the reference order, it was further observed that the learned Single Judge, while rendering the decision in George v. Federal Bank Ltd. (supra), had not noticed the earlier decision of this Court in Velayudhan Nair v. Kerala K.Y.Kuries (supra).

4. We have heard Adv.Smt.Uthara Ashokan, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners.

5. As regards the scope of Section 152 of the Code, the legal position is well settled. is intended to amend or correct two categories of errors in judgments, decrees, or orders, namely: (a) clerical or arithmetical mistakes, and (b) errors arising from any accidental slip or omission. No elaborate discussion is required to explain what constitutes clerical or arithmetical mistakes. Clerical mistakes are those that occur in the course of typing or writing, while arithmetical mistakes are those that occur in the course of calculation.

6. In respect of the second category, namely errors arising from accidental slips or omissions, the decisive test is whether it is apparent from th