Application under Section 152 C.P.C. cannot be entertained in execution proceedings to correct errors made by parties; it is limited to mistakes by the court only.

ORDER :

K.R. MOHAPATRA, J.

1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. This CMP has been filed assailing the order dated 28^th January, 2021 (Annexure-7) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baripada in Execution Case No.12 of 2009 (arising out of T.S. No.150 of 1992), whereby an application under Section 152 C.P.C. filed by the Petitioners-D.Hrs. for correction of the clerical mistake in the plaint as well as judgment and decree has been rejected.

3. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that T.S. No.150 of 1992 was filed for declaration of right, title and interest as well as for recovery of possession and permanent injunction over Schedule 'A' land, description of which is as under:

SCHEDULE 3

4. The suit was decreed in favour of Plaintiffs-Petitioners. Being aggrieved, the unsuccessful Defendants preferred T.A. No. 52/49 of 2001/1997, which was dismissed on contest. Thereafter, the Petitioners-D.Hrs. filed Execution Case No. 12 of 2009 for execution of the decree passed in T.S. No. 150 of 1992. During pendency of the execution proceeding, the Petitioners- D.Hrs could point out that the decree has been passed in respect of Plot Nos.831, 832 and 833 of Khata No. 55 instead of Plot Nos. 531, 532 and 533. Accordingly, they filed an application under Section 152 C.P.C. for correction of the clerical error in the schedule of the plaint and also for consequential correction in the judgment and decree passed in T.S. No. 150 of 1992. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baripada holding that provision under Section 152 C.P.C. is not applicable to the correction of clerical error in the plaint rejected the same. Hence, this CMP has been filed.

5. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Court has inherent power to correct the error crept in due to accidental slip or omission, so that the judgment and decree passed by the Court is implemented, failing which the entire endeavour made by the Civil Court both in trial as well as appellate stage will be futile. In the instant case, such clerical error could not be pointed out till filing of the execution case. It happened due to oversight. The contesting Defendants have never raised objection with regard to incorrect description of the property in Schedule 'A'. They were also under an impression that the suit lands are as per the description in the Schedule 'A'. Since both the parties have contested the suit as well as the appeal on a bona fide impression that description of the property in Schedule 'A' of the plaint is correct, there is no impediment on the part of the learned executing Court to entertain an application under Section 152 C.P.C. and correct the clerical error to see that the Plaintiffs enjoy the fruit of the decree. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order and to permit the Plaintiffs- Petitioners to correct the Schedule 'A' of the plaint and also for a direction to correct the judgment and decree accordingly, which is put into execution. In support of his case, he relied upon the decisions in the cases of Santosh Kumar Sahoo v- Radhanath Sahoo and four others, reported in 2013 (I) OLR 363, Kastura Sahu and another -v- Sushila Seth and others , reported in 2009 (I) CLR 90, Maheswar Pati -v- Golam Rasul and others reported in 2014 (Supp.-I) OLR 1017, Dinabandhu Mohanty -v- Smt. Ramamani Pattnaik and others , reported in 2008 (II) OLR 125 and Hari Prasad Bhuyan -v- Durga Prasad Bhuyan and others , reported in 2008 (I) OLR (SC) 497.

6. Mr. Mishra, learne