IMPORTANT POINT
Section 152 of the CPC permits rectification of clerical errors in judgments when there is no dispute regarding the identity of the property.

ORDER :

(HIRDESH, J.) :

In this civil revision the applicants/revisionists being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11-3-2023 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Junior Division, Niwas, District Mandla in MJC No. 36/2022 whereby the application filed by applicants under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that applicants/plaintiffs are daughters and respondent/defendant is son of Late Saddu Goud. The applicants/plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 33-A/2016 for declaration, partition and separate possession over one-third share in their father’s property. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 11-3-2017 held that each applicant/plaintiff has one-third share in father’s property. The respondent/defendant being aggrieved with the judgment and decree of the trial Court preferred First Appeal before the District Judge, Mandla which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 62-A/2018. The learned lower appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 7-10-2022 and dismissed the appeal.

3. It is further averred that on account of inadvertence on the part of applicant’s counsel the disputed property were mentioned as “Khasra Nos. 188, 198, 265 admeasuring 3.09 hectares” in the plaint, whereas the correct number and area of Khasra is “Kh.No. 188, 198 and 165 admeasuring 3.90 hectares”. The respondent/defendant never raised any objection in this regard. The written statement filed respondent/defendant to Civil Suit No. 233-A/2016 has been brought on record as Annexure-A/5. It is stated from perusal of judgment dated 11-3-2017 it is clear that on 16.5.2018 there is mention of mistake in area as “3.09 hectares” and correct area is “3.90 hectares”.

4. On 15-11-2022 the applicants/plaintiffs filed an application under section 152 of Civil Procedure Code for changing Khasra No. 265 into Khasra No. 165. It is submitted that there is no dispute of identity of disputed land and both the Courts below have mentioned in their judgment and decree as Khasra No. 188, 165 and 198. The trial Court also discussed about renumbering of khasra as mentioned in Exhibit-P/3 and also mentioned current Khasra No. 165 and its earlier Khasra No. 98. But, the trial Court by impugned order rejected the application without appreciation of material available on record. Hence, this civil revision by the applicants/plaintiffs.

5. This revision has been filed by the applicants/plaintiffs on the ground that bare perusal of impugned dated 11-3-2023 it would be clear that same has been passed without properly appreciating the fact that parties went on trial and adduced, both oral and documentary, evidence in respect of the suit property and there was no dispute as to the identity of the suit property. It is further stated that trial Court in paragraph 28 of the judgment held that plaintiffs have a right to equal share in Khasra No. 188, 165 and 198 along with the defendant. It is further submitted that there is no dispute of identity of disputed land, then if any party has committed error in mentioning wrong Khasra number of land, then it can be rectified by way of section 152 of CPC and accordingly, prayed for allowing the application and setting aside the impugned order.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that by default in place of Khasra No. 165, it was wrongly mentioned as Khasras No. 265. She also submitted that trial Court as well as lower appellate Court in their judgments and decrees mentioned Khasra No. 165. The trial Court as well as lower appellate Court have already mentioned in their judgment as Khasra No. 165. She also submitted that according to re-numbering slip (‘parchi’) the Khasra No. 98 was allotted new number as “Khasra No. 165”.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent/defendant has prayed for rejection of this civil revision and submitted that that application was barred by provision of Order 2 Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Co