Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Rani & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
V. Sivaraj - Respondent
CRP (NPD) No.1163 of 2021 and CMP No.8926 of 2021
Decided On : 10-06-2021
Section 152 CPC - Amendment of Judgment - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 152 CPC - The court amended the decree under Section 152 CPC to include a relief that was omitted in the original judgment and decree. The court held that the omission was a clerical mistake and that the respondent was entitled to the relief sought. The court emphasized the inherent power of the court to amend judgments to ensure complete justice between the parties.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent sought specific performance of an agreement of sale against the petitioners. An ex parte decree was passed in favor of the respondent. The respondent filed an application under Section 152 CPC to include a relief that was omitted in the original judgment and decree.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the relief sought by the respondent was inadvertently omitted in the original judgment and decree and that it was a clerical mistake. The court emphasized the inherent power of the court to amend judgments to ensure complete justice between the parties.
Issues: The issues involved the application of Section 152 CPC, the nature of the relief sought by the respondent, and the timing of the application filed by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the omission in the original judgment and decree was a clerical mistake and that the respondent was entitled to the relief sought. The court emphasized the inherent power of the court to amend judgments to ensure complete justice between the parties.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and the impugned order passed by the Trial Court was upheld. The court found no merit in the grounds raised by the petitioners and emphasized that the petitioners should have filed a necessary application to set aside the ex parte decree instead of challenging the impugned order under Section 152 CPC.
ORDER :
(Heard through video conference)
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are the defendants in the suit, aggrieved by the order dated 18.09.2019 in I.A. No.1 of 2019 in O.S. No.75 of 2007 passed by the Trial Court under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity “CPC”), whereby, the Trial Court has amended the decree.
2. The respondent, who is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S. No.75 of 2007, has sought for a specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 20.11.2006 against the petitioners/defendants. He had sought for the following reliefs in the suit O.S. No.75 of 2007:
(b) award the cost of the suit.
(c) pass such further or other relief as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
3. The Trial Court has passed an ex parte decree in favour of the respondent/plaintiff on 21.01.2008. The operative portion of the judgment, dated 21.01.2008 reads as follows :
"Other Language"
4. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff noticed the following omission in the decree :
Hence, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Section 152 CPC on the ground that the decree has omitted by accidental slip to include the following sentence “on their failure, the Court shall execute and register the sale deed in favour of the respondent / plaintiff”.
5. The Trial Court, by its order dated 18.09.2019, which is under challenge in this revision in I.A. No.1 of 2019, has allowed the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Section 152 CPC.
6. The petitioners/defendants have raised the following grounds in this revision for challenging the impugned order dated 18.09.2019 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S. No.75 of 2007 :
(b) Section 152 CPC will come into play only when there are clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the judgment;
(c) The impugned order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the Trial Court will amount to altering the earlier judgment dated 21.01.2008; and
(d) The impugned order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the Trial Court will amount to reviewing the earlier judgment dated 21.01.2008 and is not permissible under law.
7. Heard Mr. A.S. Sathiesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants and perused the materials placed on record before this Court. Since no adverse orders are passed against the respondent/plaintiff, notice to the respondent/plaintiff is dispensed with.
8. This Court does not find any merit in the grounds raised by the petitioners/defendants in this revision for the following reasons :
(i) The respondent/plaintiff had sought for the following reliefs in the plaint seeking for specific performance of an agreement of sale:
(b) award the cost of the suit.
(c) pass such further or other relief as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(ii) Admittedly, an ex parte decree has been passed granting the relief of the specific performance in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.
(iii) In the judgment dated
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
