Inadvertent clerical errors in judgments can be corrected under Section 152 of the C.P.C. without altering substantive decisions.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 152 - Correction of clerical errors - Court has the authority to correct inadvertent mistakes in judgments or decrees without making substantive changes to the decision. Correction applied to discrepancies in share amounts for partition based on record under Ext.12. (Paras 5, 8, 12)

(B) Jurisdiction - The trial court failed to acknowledge its jurisdiction to rectify errors, specifically an inadvertent error in share amounts for property division. (Para 8)

(C) Inherent powers of Court - Section 151 allows courts to invoke inherent powers for corrections within permissible limits of legal adjudication. (Para 8)

Facts of the case:
The suit for partition involved the share distribution of two uterine brothers’ properties. The trial court recorded the plaintiffs’ entitled share as per the recorded land rights, leading to discrepancy in recorded shares, specifically citing 9 Anna 6 Pahi versus 8 Anna 6 Pahi. (Paras 6, 12)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the trial court had made an inadvertent clerical error in the share distribution, thus necessitating correction under Section 152. (Paras 12, 13)

Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court had jurisdiction under Section 152 to correct the clerical error regarding the share distribution in the decree.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that an accidental slip or inadvertent mistake warrants correction under Section 152, emphasizing that clerical mistakes do not alter the substantive findings of the case. (Paras 8, 10)

Result: The CMP is disposed of with directions to the trial court to correct the decree to reflect the accurate share of 9 Anna 6 Pahi. (Paras 13, 14)

Table of Content
1. trial court's refusal to correct judgment error (Para 3 , 6)
2. petitioner's contention on jurisdiction error (Para 5)
3. court's power to correct clerical mistakes (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. identifying discrepancies in court's judgment (Para 12)
5. restoration of correct share to defendants (Para 13)

JUDGMENT :

B.P. ROUTRAY, J.

1. Though some of the opposite parties have entered appearance but no one appears for them on call despite names of Lawyers are indicated in the list.

2. Heard Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner.

3. Present CMP is directed against order dated 28^th March 2025 of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhadrak passed in C.M.A. No.50 of 2024 (arising out of C.S. Case No.126 of 2000), wherein the prayer of the Petitioner to correct the judgment and decree in respect of recording of their share has been refused.

4. Opposite Party No.12 is reported to have died by the time of filing of C.M.A. So her substitution is not required, as submitted by the petitioner.

5. It is submitted by Mr. Mishra that, learned trial Court has erred in opining that he is lacking jurisdiction under section 152 of the C.P.C. to correct such error appearing in the judgment and decree with regard to share of the parties. It is submitted that though the finding in the judgment is in respect of share to the extent of 9 Anna 6 Pahi as per the noting reflected in the RoR under Ext.12, but the decree is speaking about 8 Anna 6 Pahi, which is an inadvertent error. But learned trial Court has failed to appreciate such inadvertent mistake occurred in the judgment and decree and refused to entertain the prayer for correction.

6. Present Opposite Parties were the Plaintiffs and present Petitioner was Defendant No.3 in the suit. The suit was for partition of the properties belonging to Raghu Sahu and Radhu Sahu, two uterine brothers. Raghu died leaving his son Sambhu. Naran is the son of Sambhu, who died leaving Gangadhar and other Defendants No.1 to 10 as his LRs. Similarly, Radhu died leaving his son Nanda. Mayadhar and Chintamani are two sons and Plaintiffs and Defendant No.15 is the LR of Chintamani. Defendants No.11 to 14 are the LRs of Mayadhar. Defendants No.16 to 21 are the purchasers in respect of part of suit land. In such background, the learned trial Court adjudicated the dispute by framing seven issues, which reads as follows:

“I) Whether the suit is maintainable in the eyes of law?

II) Whether there is any cause of action to file this suit and the claim filed is barred by limitation?

III) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary decree of ½ share over Lot 1 property and 16 anna share over the Lot 2 property of the Kha Schedule suit land?

IV) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to total lot 1 and lot 2 property of Gha schedule land which is a part of Ga schedule land and ½ share over lot 3 property of Gha schedule land?

V) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to appointment of civil court commissioner to effectuate the partition as per preliminary decree if the parties fail to mutually partition the suit lands within time fixed by the court?

VI) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to decree of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from entering upon the suit lands?

VII) To what costs and other reliefs, the plaintiffs are entitled?”

7. The trial Court answered all the issues by parting the suit land accordingly, as recorded in the RoR under Ext.12, between all the parties as per the share noting made therein in respect of their fathers. As per RoR under Ext.12, the father of Defendant No.3, namely, Gangadhar Sahoo has the recorded share of 9 Anna 6 Pahi and Mayadhar Sahu along with Chintamani Sahu has 6 Anna 6 Pahi. But in the ordering portion, it is recorded as 8 Anna 6 Pahi in respect of Gangadhar Sahoo.

8. So far as the power of Court with regard to correction of a decree in terms of the provisions contained in Section 152 of C.P.C. is concerned, the same has been well settled. While exerci