IMPORTANT POINT
Clerical and arithmetical errors in judgments can be corrected under Section 152 of the CPC without altering substantive rights, and the High Court has the authority to intervene under Article 227 to ensure proper judicial administration.

JUDGMENT :

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.

1. The instant petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order dated 25.11.2019 passed in Partition Suit No.418 of 2016 by learned Sub-Judge-X, Ranchi has been assailed by which the petition dated 18.02.2019 filed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

2. As per the case of the petitioner, a partition suit was filed for partition of their ancestral property. During the pendency of the partition suit, the co-sharers have entered into a compromise based upon the settlement.

3. The same has been brought to the notice of the learned court. The learned trial court on the basis of that settlement, has passed the judgment based upon that the decree was also passed.

4. As per the petitioner, in the judgment, the following typographical errors have been crept up :-

“In page 1, of the judgment in para 2 line 2 plot no.531 is wrongly typed whereas actual plot no. is 538 needs to be amended. That in page 1 of the judgment in para 2 line 4 plot no is typed 151 whereas actual plot no is 951 needs to be amended. He further submitted in page no 1 of the judgment in para 2 line 6 area is typed 75 decimals whereas actual area is 76 decimals needs to be amended. That in page 3 in para 4 line 7 total area typed as 1.93 acres whereas actual area is 1.92 acres may be amended. That in line 8 area wrongly typed 1.93 whereas actual area is 1.92 acres may be amended in line no 24 area wrongly typed as 1.93 acres whereas area is 1.92 acres may be amended. That in page no 4 in line six area was written as 1.93 acres whereas actual areas is 1.92 acres may be amended. That in page no 4 line seven area was written 1.93 acres were as actual area is 1.92 acres may be amended. In page no 4 line twenty four area was written 1.93 acres whereas actual area is 1.92 acres may be amended. That in page no 7 in line four area was written as 1.93 acres whereas actual area is 1.92 acres may be amended. That in page no 7 in line seven areas was written as .965 acres whereas actual area was 0.96 acres may be amended. In page 7 para 11 line six plot no was wrongly typed as 964 whereas actual plot no is 968 may be amended. In page 7 para 11 line eight total area was written as 1.93 decimals whereas actual area is 1.92 acres may be amended. That in the decree which was prepared on 16.11.2018 there was also few typing mistakes. In page no 1 of the decree in sl. no 2 the plaintiff name was wrongly typed the plaintiff is Munna Kujur was it typed as Minne Kujur may be amended. In page no 2 in the schedule of the property total area 1.93 acres was typed whereas actual area is 1.92 acres.”

5. The plaintiff on the aforesaid backdrop, has filed a petition under Section 152 of the C.P.C. but the same has been rejected vide order dated 25.11.2019 on the ground that the copy of the judgment and decree have been the reproduction of the language of the plaint and, as such, the requirement was to file a proper petition for amendment. The said order is under challenge.

6. The matter was heard by this Court on 12.01.2024. Notice was issued upon the opposite parties including the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, who was arrayed as a party to the proceeding before the learned trial court, and, as such, before this Court in view of the fact that the land falls under the schedule area.

7. The contesting respondents, i.e., Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 are being represented by Mr. Pankaj Srivastava and Mr. Ritesh Kumar respectively.

8. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi who is O.P. No.2, even though the notice has been served through dasti as per the supplementary affidavit where the acknowledgement of the notice has been appended but there is no appearance.

9. Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 and Mr. Ritesh Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No.3 have jointly submitted that they are having no objection if any correction will be made. Such concession has been given on the ground that the