Court held that omissions in judgments can be corrected as clerical errors under CPC without affecting substantive rights; substantial issues remain for future determination in the appellate court.

Judgment :

Vikas Suri, J.

The challenge in this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 17.03.2025 (Annexure P-16) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby the review application filed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 for review of the judgment dated 14.11.2024 (Annexure P-5) has been dismissed. The primary contention raised is that the trial Court erred in allowing correction of the judgment under Section 151 and 152, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC'), which powers ought not to have been exercised after passing of the decree, particularly when two significant additional issues, framed as 1(c) and 1(d), were not decided in the judgment sought to be reviewed.

2. For convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties to the instant revision petition, are being referred to by their original status before the trial Court, i.e. petitioner as plaintiff, and respondent Nos.1 to 16 as defendant Nos.1 to 16.

3. Succinctly, the facts relevant for adjudication of the present petition are that the plaintiff (Nirmal Singh) filed a suit, inter alia, for declaration that he is owner of the suit property described in the head note of the plaint and that the sale deeds dated 04.08.1999 and 04.10.1999 executed in favour of defendant No.1, sale deeds dated 04.08.1999 and 04.10.1999 executed in favour of defendant No.2, sale deeds dated 04.08.1999 and 14.09.1999 executed in favour of defendant No.3 and sale deeds dated 04.08.1999 and 14.09.1999 executed in favour of defendant No.4, are illegal, null and void, without consideration, result of fraud and misrepresentation, and are liable to be annulled/cancelled/set aside. The plaintiff also prayed for possession of the suit property.

3.1 The suit involved multiple sale deeds of the year 1999, alleged to have been forged and procured through fraud, coercion and undue influence. Upon notice of the suit, the same was contested by the defendants by filing their written statements.

3.2 Initially, issues were framed on 31.10.2011 (Annexure P-1) and were thereafter, reframed vide order dated 31.05.2023 (Annexure P-2) at the instance of defendant Nos.1 to 4. Subsequently, on another application moved by defendant Nos.1 to 4, specific additional issues 1(c) and 1(d) were framed vide order dated 15.07.2023 (Annexure P-3).

3.3 The supra additional issues pertain to the allegations of fraud, coercion and misrepresentation with regard to eight specific sale deed executed in the year 1999. Parties led extensive evidence, which phase extended over a decade, between 2013 and 2023. It is averred that the arguments were finally concluded on 12.11.2024 and the judgment dated 14.11.2024 was pronounced in the absence of the plaintiff and his counsel. It is alleged that the said judgment was pronounced without being written and signed, as mandated by the Civil Procedure Code, thereby raising serious concerns regarding irregularity and illegality. The plaintiff applied for certified copy of the judgment dated 14.11.2024 on 16.11.2024, but faced repeated delays in obtaining the same. It is further alleged that the judgment had not been written when it was pronounced, and that on 29.11.2024, the plaintiff made a complaint (Annexure P-7) to the Hon'ble Administrative Judge. Thereafter, the judgment was uploaded on 14.12.2024. Crucially, the judgment failed to mention or decide two additional issues 1(c) and 1(d), framed vide order dated 15.07.2023, raising serious questions since those issues concerned the very foundation of the suit and the validity of the impugned sale deeds.

3.4 On 19.12.2024, defendant Nos.1 to 4 filed a review application under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Sections 114, 151 and 152 CPC seeking rectificatio