The court clarified the scope of Sec.151/152 C.P.C. and Order 6 Rule 18 C.P.C. in correcting clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees, or orders, emphasizing that the error to be corrected must be on the part of the court.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to the order dated 15.09.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bhadrak in I.A. No.119 of 2013 arising out of T.S. No.111 of 2003-I. By the said order, learned trial court rejected the application of the plaintiffs seeking leave of the court to include two plots in the plaint and to amend the decree accordingly.

2. Since the dispute lies in a narrow compass, it is not necessary to recount in detail the cases of the parties. Suffice it to say that the petitioners as plaintiffs instituted the suit for partition impleading the opposite parties as defendants. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendant nos.2 and 5 entered appearance and filed their written statement. Other defendants were set exparte. While the matter stood thus, the plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of plaint on 22.03.2006 to include two plots in the suit schedule. The same was allowed. But then the plaintiffs did not carry out the amendment. Both the parties led evidence. The suit was decreed preliminarily on 19.10.2011. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an application under Sec.151 C.P.C. for incorporation of plots in the plaint, judgment and decree. It was stated that due to mistake, the amendment could not carried out. The petitioners were not aware of the mistake and came to know about the same at the time of filing of the petition for final decree. Earlier petition filed by them was rejected on the ground that there was no averment as to whether the appeal was pending or not. Since no appeal is pending, they sought leave of the court. Learned trial court came to hold that the petition for correction of decree is not maintainable and dismissed the same.

3. Heard Mr. S.S.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared for the opposite parties.

4. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the application for amendment of plaint to incorporate two plots had been allowed by the learned trial court, but the same could not be carried out inadvertently. The court has ample power to include the plots, which have been left out, in the final decree.

5. The short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the decree can be corrected by the court in exercise of its power under Sec.151/152 C.P.C., when the mistake has been committed by the parties.

6. In Jayanta Kumar Rath (since dead) through L.Rs vs. Pravas Kumar Rath (since dead) through L.Rs, 2016(I) ILR-CUT-969, this Court held thus:

“11. The case of the petitioners may be examined on the anvil of the decisions cited supra. On a bare perusal of Section 152 CPC, it is evident that 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 on its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. If clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from the accidental slip or omission has been committed by the court, then the court may correct the same on its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. It does not comprehend the correction of any error on the part of any of the litigating parties. The error must be on the part of the court. In an application under Section 152 CPC, the Court cannot ascertain the intention of the parties making the compromise and filing the application. The said section cannot be invoked for the purpose of explaining as to what was the intention of the parties in arriving at the compromise. Since the parties have filed a compromise petition admitting the contents to be correct and thereafter the court has recorded the same, Section 152 CPC cannot be pressed into service to correct the compromise petition and decree.”

7. The matter may be examined from another angle. Order 6 Rule 18 C.P.C. provides that if a party who has obtained