IMPORTANT POINT
Correction of decree--Some mistake in description of property in plaint--Identity of property not in dispute--It is a case of clerical inadvertent error which does not affect the merits of the case and can be corrected.

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition is for setting aside the order dated 16.9.2003, passed by Additional District Judge, Rohtak, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for correction of decree sheet dated 26.10.1995 in Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1995, was dismissed.

2. Briefly, the facts are that one Shri Pandit Ram Singh took loan from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak in 1954. As he failed to repay the same, recovery proceedings were initiated and the property owned by him was put to public auction. The petitioner, being highest bidder, was successful in the auction proceedings. The entire amount of auction money of Rs. 8,000/- was deposited by the petitioner with the authorities way back in the 1973, when the auction took place. The possession of the property was delivered to the petitioner and he is in actual physical possession thereof since 27.7.1973. As the letter of ownership was not issued in favour of the petitioner and the entries in the revenue records were not changed, the suit was filed, which was dismissed by the trial court. However, the learned lower appellate court decreed the same on 26.10.1995. The application came to be filed for correction of the description of the property, as was mentioned in the plaint, which was ultimately incorporated in the judgment and decree. It is the order passed in the aforesaid application which is impugned before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the mistake committed by the petitioner at the time of filing the pleadings before the courts below was totally inadvertent. It is merely the numbers which have been wrongly typed in the plaint, otherwise there is no dispute about the identity of the property. The petitioner is in possession of the property ever since he purchased the same in the open auction from the authorities for recovery of loan from Shri Pandit Ram Singh. On account of the fact that by mistake, the description of the property was wrongly mentioned in the plaint and consequently in the decree, the petitioner should not be deprived of the fruits of the judgment and decree passed in his favour by the learned Additional District judge, Rohtak way back on 26.10.1995. She further submitted that the respondents, being not aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree, did not file any further appeal. As far as application of the provisions of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, `the CPC) for carrying out correction of the error in the judgment and decree, even if there is error in the pleadings, reliance was placed upon Gulzara Singh and others v. Devinder Singh and others, (2004-3) PLR 330 and Mrs. Meena Kumari and another v. General Public and others, 2007(5) RCR(Civil) 662 : (2007-3) PLR 533.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned court below had decreed the suit in terms of the pleadings and prayer made by the petitioner before the court. The description of the property, as was given by the petitioner in the plaint, has been made part of the judgment and decree. It is too late in the day for the petitioner to now seek correction thereof, as it would amount to grant of relief pertaining to the property which was never sought. Relying upon Patti Amma v. Raman Nair, AIR 1962 Kerala 6, it was submitted that amendment of decree to rectify a judgment which is defective on merits is not permissible in law.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. Before I proceed to discuss the facts of the present case, I deem it appropriate to discuss the scope of Section 152 CPC, on which much arguments have been addressed by learned counsel for the parties and judgments have also been cited. The basis of the provision under Section 152 CPC is found on the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit i.e., an act of the court shall prejudice no man. The judgment, which is quite close to the facts in the present case is Jayalakshm