Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Neeraj Tiwari, J.
Maqsood Ahmad – Petitioner
Versus
Kumari Salma Bano and Others – Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2912 of 2018
Decided On : 09-04-2024
Rectification - Typographical Error - CPC Section 152 - The court interpreted Section 152 of the CPC, allowing rectification of clerical errors in judgments, affirming that such corrections can be made at any stage, influencing the dismissal of the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rectification of a previous order due to a typographical error, claiming it was barred by estoppel after costs were accepted. The respondents argued the court had the authority to correct such errors.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the original order contained a typographical error and that the rectification was valid under Section 152 of the CPC, affirming the lower court's decisions.
Issues: Whether the order dated 9.12.2016 contained a typographical error and if the court had the authority to rectify it.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that clerical or typographical errors in judgments can be corrected at any time under Section 152 of the CPC, and acceptance of costs does not create an estoppel.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Neeraj Tiwari, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashwani Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondents.
2. Present petition has been filed seeking following relief:
“(i) Issue an order or direction in exercise of power conferred under Article 227 of the constitution of India setting aside the order dated 16.3.2017 passed by the Court of Small Cause in Suit of Small Cause No. 17 of 2017 and order dated 14.11.2017 passed by the District Judge, Gorakhpur in Revision No. 26 of 2017.”
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that earlier petitioner has moved an application 97(c) dated 7.1.2016 in Small Cause No. 17 of 2017 for a direction to the plaintiff/respondents to produce some evidence in respect of material alteration in tenanted house.
4. It is next submitted that the said application was allowed vide order dated 9.12.2016 imposing the cost of Rs. 500/- to the applicant/defendant and the cost was also accepted by the plaintiff/respondents. Later on, plaintiff/respondents have moved application 119(c) dated 25.2.2017 for rectification of order dated 9.12.2016. In the said application, it is stated that from the perusal of order dated 9.12.2016, it is apparently clear that Court was inclined to 'reject' the application, but in operative portion, it has wrongly been typed as 'allowed'. The said application was considered by the Court concerned and the same was allowed vide order dated 16.3.2017 rectifying the typographical error in the earlier order dated 9.12.2016.
5. He firmly submitted that once an application is allowed imposing certain costs and costs is also accepted by the opposite party, the said order cannot be challenged and is barred by the principle of estoppel.
6. He further submitted that petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.3.2017 by filing Revision No. 26 of 2017, which was also rejected by the Revisional Court vide order dated 14.11.2017. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Krishan Kumar Khanna v. International Society For Krishna Consciousness, 2000 Law Suit (SC) 1371.
7. Per contra, Sri Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondents submitted that from the perusal of order dated 9.12.2016, it is very much clear that since beginning to last, except in operative portion, Court was inclined to reject the application. Even in last line before the operative portion, Court has held that application 97(C) is liable to be rejected on cost, but due to typographical error in operative part, in place of 'rejection', word 'allowed' has been mentioned. Therefore, respondents have filed application 119(c) and Court concerned vide reasoned order dated 16.3.2017 accepted that it was typographical error and rectified the same exercising its power under Section 152 of CPC, 1908. After considering both the orders, Revisional Court has also opined that Court is having power to rectify its mistake at any stage. He lastly submitted that there is no illegality in both orders dated 16.3.2017 and 14.11.2017.
8. I have considered rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perused the records as well as judgment cited above.
9. Controversy before this Court is as to whether order dated 9.12.2016 is having typographical error or not and further Court can rectify the same or not. To conclude the controversy, it is required to quote complete order in question dated 9.12.2016 and the same is quoted below:
10. From the perusal of order dated 9.12.2016, it is apparently clear that Court was inclined to reject the application 97(c), but due to typographical error in operative portion, in place of word fujLr word Lohdkj has been typed and while correcting the same vide order dated 16.3.2017, Court concerned has held that if there is typographical error in the order, it can be rectified under the provisions of Section 152 CPC. Further, after going through the application 97(c) as well as ord
AI
Clerical errors in court orders can be rectified at any stage under Section 152 of the CPC, and acceptance of costs does not prevent such rectification.
Typographical errors in court orders can be rectified at any stage under Section 152 of CPC, and acceptance of costs does not create estoppel against such rectification.
Clerical and arithmetical errors in judgments can be corrected under Section 152 of the CPC without altering substantive rights, and the High Court has the authority to intervene under Article 227 to....
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.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 152 – Correction in decree – An unintentional mistake of court which may prejudice cause of any party, must be rectified – If unintentional mistakes could be rect....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
