Back
2016 Supreme(Ori) 335
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
A.K. RATH, J.
Netrananda Dalai - Petitioner
Versus
Ratnabati Nayak (dead) and another - Opposite parties
W.P.(C) No.12357 of 2008
Decided On : 16-07-2016
For the Appellant :Mr.N.P.Patnaik Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr.T.Barik Advocate
Section 152 CPC allows for the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slip or omission by the court, not by the litigating parties, and should be exercised liberally for the promotion of justice.
Headnote:
Decree Correction - Section 152 CPC - [Section 152 CPC] - The court considered the application for correction of the decree under Section 152 CPC, emphasizing that the section allows for the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slip or omission by the court, not by the litigating parties. The court referred to previous decisions and held that the power to amend is exercised for the promotion of justice and should be exercised liberally to make the decree conform to the judgment on which it is founded.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction, and the executing court refused to execute the decree due to a wrongly mentioned khata number. The plaintiff sought correction of the decree under Section 152 CPC, which was rejected by the trial court. The petitioner appealed against this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 152 CPC allows for the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slip or omission by the court, not by the litigating parties. It emphasized the need for the decree to conform to the judgment and referred to previous decisions to support its ruling.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court could correct the decree under Section 152 CPC when the mistake was committed by the litigating parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 152 CPC, emphasizing that the power to amend is exercised for the promotion of justice and should be exercised liberally to make the decree conform to the judgment on which it is founded.
Final Decision: The petition for correction of the decree under Section 152 CPC was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Rath, J.
The sole question that arises for consideration is as to whether the decree can be corrected by the Court under Section 152 CPC, when there is no clerical or arithmetical mistake or error arising from any accidental slip or omission, but the mistake has been committed by the litigating parties.
2. The petitioner as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.30 of 1992 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phulbani for permanent injunction impleading the predecessors-in-interest of opposite parties 1 and 2 as defendants. In the schedule of the plaint, the suit schedule property has been described as khata no.16, plot no.753, measuring an area Ac.0.20 decimal of mouza-Jiringapada. The suit was decreed. Thereafter the plaintiff levied execution case, being E.P.No.1 of 2004. The executing court refused to execute the decree since khata number was wrongly mentioned. Assailing the order of the executing court, he filed W.P.(C) No.14601 of 2005. The said petition was withdrawn so as to file an appropriate application in the executing court. This Court observed that if an application under Section 152 CPC is filed, the same shall be considered by the executing court. While the matter stood thus, he filed an application under Section 152 CPC for correction of the decree by inserting khata no.25, instead of 16. It is stated that khata number of the suit land is 25, but not 16. The executing court came to hold that wrong khata number in the plaint, judgment and decree is not due to accidental slip or arithmetical mistake and omission by the court. It will not be appropriate to allow the amendment of khata number in the decree alone without amending the khata number in the plaint and judgment. Held so, the learned trial court rejected the application.
3. Assailing the said order, Mr. Pattnaik, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial court committed an error in not allowing the application for correction of decree. He further submitted that the Court has inherent power to amend the decree even if mistake has been committed by the parties. He relied on the decisions of different High Courts in the case of Appat Krishna Poduval Vrs. Lakshmi Nathiar and others, AIR 1950 Madras 751, Shankergouda Vrs. Garangouda and others, AIR 1976 Karnataka 204, Rayappa Basappa Killed Vrs. The Land Tribunal and others, AIR 1976 Karnataka 205, Mohinder Singh and others Vrs. Teja Singh and others, AIR 1979 Punjab and Haryana 47 and Santosh Kumar Sahoo Vrs. Radhanath Sahoo and four others, 2013(I) OLR-363.
4. Per contra, Mr.T.Barik, learned counsel for the opposite parties supported the impugned order.
5. The subject matter of dispute is no more re integra. An identical question came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Jayanta Kumar Rath (since dead) through L.Rs. Vrs. Pravas Kumar Rath (since dead) through L.Rs, 2016(I)-CUT-969. This Court, on a survey of the earlier decisions held thus:-
“8. In Papu Khan (supra), this Court held that when there is no clerical or arithmetical mistake or error arising from any accidental slip or omission, Section 152 CPC has no application.
9. In Niyamat Ali Molla (supra), the apex Court held that a decree may be corrected by the court both in exercise of its power under Section 152 CPC as also under Section 151 CPC.
10. In Bishnu Charan Das v. Dhani Biswal and another, AIR 1977 Orissa 68, this Court held that if the decree is not in conformity with the judgment it must be allowed to be amended under Sections 152 and 151 CPC to bring it in line with the judgment and that in exercising the power under Sections 151 and 152 CPC the Court merely corrects the mistake of its ministerial officer by whom the decree was drawn up. Paragraph-4 of the report is quoted hereunder:
“Section 152, CPC is based on two important principles. The first of them is the maxim that an act of the Court shall prejudice no party and the other that the Courts have a duty to see that their rec
