Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.
Shri Ram Raksh Pal Singh (dead) through his LRs. - Appellants
Versus
Smt. Sarla Devi & others – Respondents
CMP No. 14541 of 2013 in RSA No. 424 of 1992
Decided On : 08-04-2016
CPC - Correction of Judgment and Decree - Sections 151, 152, and 153 - The court allowed correction of a typographical mistake in the judgment and decree but refused to add a portion of land to the decree as it was not supported by pleadings.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought correction of a judgment and decree to include a portion of land that was omitted from the original suit. The court allowed correction of a typographical mistake but refused to add the omitted portion of land to the decree due to lack of supporting pleadings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while typographical errors could be corrected under Sections 151, 152, and 153 of the CPC, additions to the judgment and decree without supporting pleadings were not permissible.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court could allow the addition of omitted land to the judgment and decree without supporting pleadings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while typographical errors could be corrected under Sections 151, 152, and 153 of the CPC, additions to the judgment and decree without supporting pleadings were not permissible.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the application, allowing the correction of a typographical mistake in the judgment and decree but refusing to add the omitted portion of land to the decree.
JUDGMENT :
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.
CMP No. 14541 of 2013
This application has been filed with the following prayer:-
“It is, therefore, prayed that the application deserved to be allowed in the interest of justice and the accidental/clerical/typographical mistake which has occurred in the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Sub-Judge, Una in Civil Suit No.277 of 1984 Dhanpat Rai Versus Niranjan Singh decided on 12.09.1988 out of which RSA No. 424 of 1992 had arisen and which RSA No. 424 of 1992 was decided by this Hon'ble Court by its judgment dated 17.05.2001 Ram Raksh Pal Singh Versus Sarla Devi corrected. Such other orders which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the applicant.”
2. Applicants are successors-in-interest of the original plaintiff Dhanpat Rai, who has since expired. Deceased plaintiff has filed the suit with the following prayers:-
“That it is claimed and prayed that the decree for specific performance of contract dated 26.12.1982 directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff qua the suit land measuring 8 kanals 11 marlas described in the head note of the plaint and in the alternative decree for recovery of Rs.32000/- be passed with costs in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant or any other relief the court deems fit on the facts and the circumstances of the case be granted.”
3. Suit after holding the trial was decreed, for the relief so sought, by learned Senior Sub-Judge, Una, vide judgment and decree dated 12.09.1988.
4. An appeal preferred against the judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned District Judge, Una vide judgment and decree dated 13.10.1992.
5. Regular Second Appeal bearing No. 424 of 1992 filed in this Court was also dismissed on 17.05.2001.
6. Matter was further taken to the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3052 of 2003. The same was also dismissed for non prosecution vide order dated 07.10.2010. The judgment and decree passed by learned Senior Sub-Judge, therefore, has attained the finality.
7. It is during the course of execution proceedings the applicant/plaintiff came to know that the suit though was filed for the decree of possession of land measuring 8 kanal 11 marlas, however, by way of mistake half share of the land measuring 2 kanal 1 marla i.e. 1 kanal entered in Khewat No. 71, Khatauni Nos. 484 and 485, Khasra No. 3798 omitted to be mentioned in the judgment and decree and also that Khasra No.3800 came to be wrongly typed as Khasra No.3890. This has led in filing an application under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Una. The same, however, was dismissed in default on 14.03.2008. The applicants/plaintiffs thereafter moved another application being OMP No.102 of 2008. The same was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Una, vide order dated 01.10.2012, on the ground that no clerical mistake was there in the judgment and decree and also that the application was not maintainable. The applicants/plaintiffs have filed Civil Revision No.139 of 2012 in this Court against the order passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Una in OMP No. 102 of 2008. According to learned counsel, the Revision Petition, was later on withdrawn and the same stands dismissed accordingly.
8. The relief in this application has been sought on the grounds inter alia that the suit was filed for possession of land measuring 8 kanals 11 marlas in terms of the agreement dated 26.12.1982. However, a portion thereof measuring 1 kanal entered in Khewat No.71, Khatauni Nos. 484 and 485, Khasra No. 3798 to the extent of half share of Niranjan Singh omitted to be mentioned in the plaint. Similarly Khasra No.3800 came to be wrongly typed out as Khasra No.3890.
9. Application has been contested and resisted by the defendants/non-applicants on the ground that nei
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
