There is no period of limitation prescribed for filing an application for the correction of a clerical error in a decree under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

N.K.Sodhi, J.

1. Civil suit 553 of 1980 titled as Surja and Ors. v. Baldeva was decreed by the then Senior Subordinate Judge, Jind, on 12.11.1980. Surja one of the plaintiffs then filed an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) out of which the present revision petition has arisen seeking correction in the decree sheet prepared in the suit. It is alleged that the names of plaintiffs 2 and 4 in the suit are Raj Kumar and Jai Pal but due to some clerical error they have been described as Ram Kumar and Jai Lal respectively in the decree sheet. It is further alleged that this error was detected only when the decree was produced before the revenue officials for mutation of the land in dispute and that the error being clerical in nature needs to be rectified. The prayer made in the application is that the decree sheet be corrected and plaintiffs 2 and 4 be described as Raj Kumar and Jai Pal. Notice of this application was issued to the defendant who appeared and opposed the same. It was pleaded on behalf of the defendant that the application was barred by time and that a similar application filed by the applicants on 26.4.1991 was withdrawn on 11.12.1992 and, therefore, the applicants were estopped from filing the present application. On merits it was pleaded that the decree was obtained by the applicants by practicing fraud. On the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed the following issues:-

1) Whether the applicants are entitled to get the correction incorporated as alleged? OPA

2) Whether the application is within time ? OPA

3) Whether the application is barred by time as alleged in paras 2, 5 and 6 of the preliminary objections of reply? OPR

4) Whether the applicants are estopped from filing this application and whether they have waived their rights? OPR

5) Whether no judgment and decree as alleged was passed or it was result of fraud, conspiracy and collusion? OPR

6) Relief.

2. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, the trial court decided issues No. 2 and 3 against the applicants and in favour of the defendant. It was held that since the decree was passed in the year 1980 and the present application was filed in 1993 after about 12 years of the passing of the decree, the same was barred by time. The trial court also found that the applicants had filed a similar application on 30.4.1991 and since the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.12.1992 the applicants were estopped from filing the present application. Consequently, issues no. 1 and 4 were also decided against the applicants and in favour of the defendant. Since the respondent-defendant failed to prove that the applicants obtained the decree by fraud issue no. 5 was decided against the respondent and in favour of the applicants. In view of the findings recorded on issues no. 1 to 4, the trial court as per its order dated 22.7.1996 dismissed the application. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

3. Having heard counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order, I am of the view that the revision petition deserves to succeed. The trial court had sent for the original file of civil suit 553 of 1980 in which the decree was passed and after perusing the same found that the names of plaintiffs 2 and 4 as recorded in the plaint were Raj Kumar and Jai Pal and that their names correctly appeared in the judgment as well. However, due to some clerical error they were described as Ram Kumar and Jai Lal respectively in the decree sheet. It is amazing that having found that the names of plaintiffs 2 and 4 had by a clerical mistake been wrongly mentioned in the decree sheet, the trial court dismissed the application as time barred. It was observed that the decree was passed in the year 1980 whereas the application was filed in the year 1993 and, therefore, the same was barred by time. The trial court has not referred to any provision