The high court emphasizes strict adherence to procedural timelines, denying amendments based on clerical error unless compelling justification is shown, reaffirming the finality of adjudicated matters.

ORDER :

Sanjeet Purohit, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:

a) This Writ Petition may kindly be allowed with cost throughout; and

b) By an appropriate order, writ direction the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 (Annexure P/6) and 28.07.2022 (Annexure P/8) passed by learned District Judge, Bhilwara in Case No.44/2019 Civil Original (Satya Narayan Derashri vs. Public at large), by which application under Section 152 read with Section 151 of the CPC and application under Section 378 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 was rejected may kindly be quashed and set aside and application dated 09.02.2022 (Annexure P/5) and 11.04.2022 (Annexure P/7) filed by the Petitioner may kindly be allowed as prayed; and

c) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which is considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

2. Explaining the facts of the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that an application under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (“Act of 1925”) was filed for issuance of succession certificate with regard to 265 shares of Super House Leather Limited. The said application was allowed vide judgment dated 05.03.2021 and succession certificate regarding 265 shares was issued in favour of the petitioner.

2.1 Later on, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 152 read with section 151 CPC, mentioning therein that due to typographical error, the number of share has been wrongly mentioned as 265 instead of 330 shares and thus prayed for correction in the order of succession certificate dated 05.03.2021.

2.2 Learned trial Court vide its order dated 31.03.2022, rejected the said application, holding that there has been no clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the judgment, nor any error committed due to any accidental slip or omission as the judgment was based strictly in consonance with the pleadings of the petitioner and evidence adduced in that regard.

2.3 After rejection of the said application, another application under Section 378 of Act of 1925 was filed with request to issue amended certificate, however, the said application also dismissed vide order dated 28.07.2022.

Challenging the said orders dated 31.03.2022 and 28.07.2022, present writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that as a matter of fact, there are 330 shares but the same has wrongly been mentioned as 265 shares in the application preferred under Section 372 of the Act of 1925. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that it is only after receiving the communication from the respective company informing the actual number of shares that the petitioner came to know about the exact number of shares and thus the application for correction in original order dated 05.03.2021 was filed.

3.1 It is contended learned trial Court has failed to take into account the fact that due to clerical or typographical error, the number of shares was wrongly mentioned, and, therefore, the same ought to have been corrected by the learned Court below.

3.2 It is further stated that since the original application of the petitioner under Section 372 of the Act of 1925 has not been contested by any person, therefore, no prejudice was to be caused to any other party and thus the refusal to introduce necessary corrections/modifications was not at all justified.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

5. This Court finds that the orders impugned in the present writ petition are dated 31.03.2022