Back
2009 Supreme(P&H) 1348
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Mridula Bhatkar, J.
Hansabai Shripati Bhosale
Versus
Parubai Gopal Bhosale
Writ Petition No. 5624 of 2008,
Decided On : AUGUST 7, 2009
Headnote:
Amendment - Civil Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 151, 152 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed a suit for declaration and entering their names in the record of rights about a certain land. The suit was decreed, and later the respondents applied for amendment under sections 151 and 152 of the Code to correct the description of the suit property. The petitioner challenged the application, arguing that it was not an accidental slip and that the amendment goes to the root of the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the scope of sections 151, 152, and 153 of the Code, and the need to correct errors in judgments, decrees, and orders to meet the ends of justice. It examined the nature of the mistake in the plaint and the available remedies under the Code, ultimately upholding the order allowing the amendment.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the application for amendment under sections 151 and 152 of the Code, and whether the correction of the suit property description was within the ambit of these sections.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the inherent powers of the court under section 151, the power to correct clerical and arithmetical mistakes under section 152, and the general power to amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit under section 153 were to be interpreted broadly to advance the cause of justice. It emphasized the need to consider the identity of the suit property, the defendant's knowledge, and the plaintiff's intention and bonafides in allowing the amendment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the order allowing the amendment under sections 151 and 152 of the Code, with no order as to costs.
MEMORANDUM OF MOOT ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
- Introduction
This memorandum is submitted on behalf of the Respondents in the present matter challenging the order passed by the Civil Judge permitting the Respondent’s application for amendment of the plaint under Sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The Respondents contend that the impugned order is justified and within the scope of the law, as the correction pertains to a clerical mistake and does not alter the substantive issues of the case. The order is also consistent with the principles of procedural fairness and judicial discretion.
- Factual Background
The Respondents initiated a civil suit seeking declaration and correction of the record of rights concerning a specific piece of land. The suit was decreed, and the land description was recorded accordingly. Subsequently, the Respondents applied for amendment of the plaint to correct an error in the description of the land, specifically the Gat number, which was incorrectly recorded due to a clerical mistake. The Trial Court allowed the application, reasoning that the error was an accidental slip that required correction to prevent injustice.
- Grounds of Support
A. Proper Application of Sections 151 and 152 of CPC
The Respondents submit that the application for amendment was based on a clerical mistake, which is precisely the type of error these sections are designed to address. Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC empower courts to correct accidental slips or errors to prevent miscarriage of justice, without affecting the substantive rights or issues of the case (!) .
B. Amendment as a Procedural Correction, Not a Substantive Change
The correction of the Gat number does not alter the core issues or the merits of the case. It is a procedural correction that ensures the record accurately reflects the intended description of the property. Such amendments are permissible even after a decree, provided they are made to rectify clerical mistakes, and do not reopen or modify substantive rights (!) .
C. No Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
The Respondents contend that the Petitioner’s assertion of prejudice is unfounded. The Petitioner had ample opportunity to contest the correction at the appropriate stage, and the amendment was sought to clarify a clerical error, not to introduce new or substantive issues. The order was passed after due consideration, ensuring procedural fairness (!) .
D. Correct Interpretation of Legal Principles Regarding Amendments
The scope of Sections 151 and 152 is limited to correcting clerical or arithmetical mistakes, not to making substantive changes to the pleadings or the description of the property. The Court below correctly interpreted these provisions, recognizing that the amendment sought was a simple clerical correction and thus within the permissible scope (!) .
E. Judicial Discretion and the Interests of Justice
The Court has inherent powers to allow amendments that serve the interests of justice, especially when they pertain to clerical mistakes. The order allowing the correction aligns with the principles of justice and fairness, ensuring that the record accurately reflects the true description of the property without prejudice to any party (!) .
- Conclusion
In view of the above, the Respondents respectfully submit that the impugned order is well-founded in law and fact. The amendment sought was a clerical correction that falls squarely within the scope of Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC, and the Court’s exercise of discretion in allowing such correction was proper. Therefore, the Respondents pray that this Hon’ble Court:
a) Dismiss the Petition filed by the Petitioner;
b) Uphold the order of the Civil Judge allowing the amendment;
c) Confirm the correctness of the correction of the property description; and
d) Pass such other or further orders as deemed fit and proper in the interests of justice.
- Prayer
The Respondents humbly request that this Hon’ble Court dismiss the present petition, uphold the impugned order, and pass such further orders as it may deem fit and proper.
[Note: The references cited are for context and are not to be included as case law citations in the final draft.]
Mridula Bhatkar, J.
1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge,S.D.,Pune on 25/3/2008 allowing the amendment in the plaint under section 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("The Code" for short).
FACTUAL MATRIX -
2. The respondents/original plaintiffs had filed Regular Civil Suit no. 257/96 against the petitioner/ original defendants for declaration and entering their names in the record of rights about Gat No. 1238 of Mouje Winzar, Tal. Velhe, Dist Pune. The said suit was decreed on 27/3/2003. No appeal was filed. However, on 25/3/2008 the respondents i.e. original plaintiffs made application under section 151 and 152 of the Code for making amendment in the plaint and correction in the judgment and decree in respect of the description of the suit property which was wrongly described as Gat No. 1938 instead of Gat No. 1238. The learned Judge allowed the application by holding that the errors are due to accidental slip and it was necessary to correct to meet the ends of justice.
SUBMISSIONS
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that this is not an accidental slip or arithmetical error in the judgment but it is an error committed by the plaintiff while describing the property and, therefore, the application cannot be entertained under sections 151 or 152 of the Code. The respondents should have opted other mode for the relief i.e. either by filing review application or revision He has further submitted that such type of amendment goes to the root of the case and it is beyond the scope of Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has further submitted that as the decree was passed in respect of Gat no.1938 and the petitioner was not concerned about said Gat number, hence the petitioner did not file appeal challenging the said judgment and decree. Allowing such amendment is prejudicial to the petitioner. The application for correction was made five years after the date of judgment ,so on the ground of lapses also the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of the learned Trial Judge. In support of his submissions he relied on :-
[1] State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh ,2004(2) Mh. L.J. 565. [2] Dwarakadas v. State of M.P. & Anr. (1999)3 Supreme Court Cases, 500. [3] State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Roshan Singh (Dead) by Lrs. And Others, (2008)2, Supreme Court Cases ,488. It is submitted that the corrections under section 153 of the Code in the plaint is permitted only if the suit is pending and not after the suit is decided.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that sections 151 and 152 of the Code are basically meant to do the real and substantial justice. So the application is covered under the said sections. He has further submitted that the plaintiffs have filed this application after five years because during the process of entering the names on record a query was raised from the concerned authority about the Gat numbers and thereafter the respondents realised of this mistake and they approached the Court. He has further submitted that though Gat number was wrongly mentioned, all the four boundaries of the land were correctly described so the defendant had clear knowledge of the property in dispute and therefore, there was no reason for the petitioner/defendant to have any misconception of the fact regarding location and identification of the suit property. He placed reliance on the following rulings.
[1] Ganesh v. Sri.Ram Lalaji Mahraj Birajamn Mandir and others, AIR 1973 Allahabad 116. [2] Pratibha Singh and another v. Shanti Devi Prasad and another ,AIR, 2002,Supreme Court, 643. 4 [3] Rania v. Smt.Kamla Devi and another, AIR 1976, Himachal Pradesh, 57. [4] Narhari Balku Kavade (Deceased) & Ors. v. Hanmanta Timma Pujari (Deceased & Ors. 2004(4)ALL MR 356.
CONSIDERATION :-
5. The Civil Courts are vested with inherent powers and also general powers t
