1. Specific performance suit — Decree for sale deed — Dispute over property description in execution — Mohalla error. (Para 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(All) 1169
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
Santosh and others - Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Asha Rani and others - Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No. 1823, 5440 of 2025
Decided On : 01-07-2026
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, Rishi Bhushan Jauhari
For the Respondent: Rama Goel Bansal, Shalini Goel
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, Rishi Bhushan Jauhari
For the Respondent: Rama Goel Bansal, Shalini Goel
The executing court has the power under Section 47, read with Sections 151, 152, and 153 of the CPC, to correct clerical or typographical errors in the property description of a decree to ensure the decree-holder receives the fruits of the decree.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 47, 151, 152 and 153 - Execution of decree - Correction of property description - The executing court has wide and comprehensive jurisdiction under Section 47 to determine all questions relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree, including the identity of the property. In cases of ambiguity or vague descriptions, the executing court may refer to the judgment and pleadings to dispel such ambiguity (Paras 9, 11, 21).
(B) Clerical errors in decrees - A successful decree-holder should not be deprived of the fruits of a decree due to an accidental slip, typographical error, or omission. Such errors, which do not affect the merits of the case and are contrary to the averments in the plaint and admitted by the parties in the written statement, can be corrected by the executing court under the powers vested in Sections 151, 152, and 153, read with Section 47 of the Code (Paras 24, 34, 39).
Facts of the case:
A suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a house was decreed. However, the decree contained a typographical error regarding the location of the property, which differed from the description in the main body of the plaint and the original agreement to sell, although the boundaries matched. The judgment-debtors objected to the correction of this description during execution proceedings, contending that only the court that passed the decree could amend it.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the error was purely clerical and typographical. The identity of the property was clear from the pleadings, as the judgment-debtors had admitted the correct location in their written statement during the trial. The correction was necessary to give true meaning to the decree.
Issues: Whether a typographical error in the description of the suit property in a decree can be corrected by the executing court under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or whether such correction is the exclusive prerogative of the court that passed the decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The executing court is not barred from correcting an accidental slip or clerical error in the property description if the identity of the property is clearly established through pleadings and the judgment. The purpose of Section 47 is to prevent unnecessary litigation and ensure the decree is implemented according to its tenor, preventing a party from being denied the fruits of the decree on mere technicalities.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
- execution of decrees
- civil procedure code
- property law
-
pleadings and amendments
- order vi rule 17 cpc (Para 24)
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners: executing court cannot correct decree. Respondents: error apparent, correctable under Section 47, 152 CPC. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. Executing court can determine questions relating to execution under Section 47 CPC, including correcting clerical errors in decree. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 )
4. Executing court has power under Section 47 CPC to correct inadvertent clerical errors in decree description to give effect to decree. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 34 , 36 )
5. Petitions dismissed; orders of executing court and revisional court upheld; no merit found. (Para 40 )
6. Can an executing court correct a clerical error in a decree regarding property description?
Yes, under Section 47 CPC read with Sections 152/153 CPC, to avoid depriving successful plaintiff of decree fruits for accidental slip. (Para 24 , 26 , 34 , 36 )
7. What is the scope of Section 47 CPC in execution proceedings?
It confers plenary powers on executing court to determine all questions between parties relating to execution, discharge, or satisfaction of decree. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
8. Can the executing court look behind the decree when it is ambiguous?
Yes, where decree terms are vague or ambiguous, executing court may refer to judgment and pleadings to dispel ambiguity. (Para 21 )
9. Does the doctrine of merger prevent the executing court from correcting a decree?
No, merger relates to appellate court's power to amend; executing court retains power under Section 47 to correct clerical errors in description. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
JUDGMENT :
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard Sri Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
2. The petition Matters Under Article 227 No. 1823 of 2025 has been filed challenging the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Bareilly, allowing the Civil Revision No. 26 of 2024 ( Smt. Asha Rani and others vs. Santosh and others ). The petition Matters Under Article 227 No.5440 of 2025 has been filed challenging the orders dated 03.02.2025 passed by the executing court in Execution Case No. 50 of 1994, (Pooran Lal (deceased) and others vs. Maya Devi (deceased) and others), as well as revisional order dated 15.04.2025 passed by District Judge, Bareilly in Civil Revision No. Nil of 2025, ( Santosh and others vs. Smt. Asha Rani and others ).
3. Both the petitions arise from the same suit and the same execution case, therefore they are being considered and decided together.
4. Brief facts of the case are that one Pooran Lal (predecessor in interest of the respondents) instituted a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 31.12.1967 executed by one Maya Devi (predecessor in interest of the present petitioners). By judgment and decree dated 29.04.1972 passed by the trial court, suit filed by the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "respondents") was decreed. The judgment and decree dated 29.04.1972 was challenged in appeal by defendant (hereinafter referred to as "petitioners") by filing a first appeal under Section 96 of the C.P.C. The first appeal referred above was allowed by judgment and order dated 05.03.1973 passed by the first appellate court and judgment and decree dated 29.04.1972 passed by the trial court was set aside and the suit was remanded by the appellate court to be decided by the trial court. After the remand, by the judgment and decree dated 21.02.1974, suit filed by the respondents was dismissed by the trial court. The judgment and decree dated 21.02.1974 was challenged by the respondents in Civil Appeal No. 76 of 1974, Pooranlal Vs. Smt. Maya Devi , which was allowed by District Judge vide judgment and order dated 21.04.1975 and the suit was decreed with cost and with a direction to the petitioners to execute the sale deed of the disputed house within thirty days from the date of order. The judgment and decree dated 21.04.1975 passed by the District Judge in Civil Appeal No. 76 of 1974 was challenged before this court in Second Appeal No. 884 of 1975, Smt. Maya Devi Vs. Pooranlal . The second appeal was dismissed by this Court vide judgment and decree dated 23.01.2006. During pendency of second appeal, a conditional stay order was granted by this Court, however, since conditions of the stay order were not obeyed by the judgment debtors i.e. petitioners, execution application was filed by the respondents before the Munsiff City, Bareilly on 02.10.1994 which was registered as Execution Case No. 50 of 1994. Both original plaintiff and defendant died during the pendency of the execution case and were substituted by present respondents and the petitioners respectively. In the execution case, respondents filed draft sale deed to be executed by the petitioners before the executing court marked as paper No. 69-C. In the draft sale deed, the address of the property to be transferred was mentioned to be situated at Mohalla- Siklapur, Bareilly. The petitioners filed their objection to the draft sale deed, paper No. 70-C challenging the details of the property. On 30.01.2024, the respondents filed application paper No. 91-C wherein it was stated that while preparing the decree, house in question has been referred to be situated at Mohalla-Gulab Nagar instead of Mohalla- Siklapur. It was also stated in the application that the error is because of mistake of the clerk, who prepared the decree and is liable to be corrected. To application paper No. 91-C, objections were filed b
