IMPORTANT POINT
Civil courts have the inherent power to correct clerical errors and mistakes arising from accidental slips or omissions in judgments, decrees, or orders, including those traceable to the pleadings of the parties, without reviewing the judgment itself.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

1. The petitioner herein invokes power of superintendence of this Court vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order passed by the learned 2nd Additional Munsiff Jammu ("the trial court") on 25.07.2022 whereby the application of the petitioner filed under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking correction of an error in the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2022 has been dismissed.

2. The application, as is evident from the order impugned, is dismissed on the ground that the correction of error pointed out by the petitioner is not an error attributable to the court and, therefore, not covered by the provisions of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. Impugned order is assailed by the petitioner inter alia on the ground that the trial court has placed a narrow interpretation on the provisions of Section 152 CPC, which provision is wide enough to take within its sweep the correction of bona fide errors that may have been carried to the judgment from the pleadings of the parties.

4. Mr. Sanjay Kakkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that apart from Section 152 CPC, Section 151 CPC gives inherent powers to the civil court to pass orders which may not be specifically provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, provided exercise of such power is warranted to do substantial justice between the parties. Mr. Kakkar has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in "Niyamat Ali Molla v. Sonargon Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. & Ors." and submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the civil court in the exercise of power under sections 151 and 152 CPC is empowered to correct errors in the judgment/decree or order from any accidental slip or omission even when such accidental slip or omission may have emanated from the pleadings of the parties.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, it is necessary to set out the pleadings of Section 151 and 152 of Code of Civil Procedure:-

S.151 "Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court."

S.152 "Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties."

6. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure only recognizes the powers which are, otherwise, inherent in a court of civil jurisdiction and which can be exercised to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of the Court. In a way, Section 151 only supplements and does not override or evade other express provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Similarly, Section 152 CPC empowers a Civil Court to correct clerical or arithmetic mistake in the judgment/decree or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission.

What is held by the Supreme Court in "Niyamat Ali Molla v. Sonargon Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. & Ors." case in paragraph 18 to 22 is set out below:-

"18. Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the Court to correct its own error in a judgment, decree or order from any accidental slip or omission. The principle behind the said provision is actus curiae neminem gravabit, i.e., nobody shall be prejudiced by an act of court.

19. Code of Civil Procedure recognizes the inherent power of the court. It is not only confined to the amendment of the judgment or decree as envisaged under section 152 of the code but also inherent power in general. The courts also have duty to see that the records are true and present the correct state of affair. There cannot, however, be any doubt whatsoever that the court cannot exercise the said jurisdiction so as to revie