SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Sneh Lata and Ors. – Appellants
versus
Subhash Chand and Ors. – Respondents
CMP No.15206 of 2022 in FAO No.128 of 2012
Decided on 3.10.2023

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2:Ms. Shivani Tegta, Advocate, vice Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Amendment of judgment and decree – Power under Section 152 of CPC also extends to error committed by parties in their pleadings.

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Sections 152 and 153-A – Amendment of judgment and decree – Court has jurisdiction to correct error committed by party in a pleading – Power under Section 152 of CPC is not confined to amendment of judgment and decree containing error on part of Court – This power also extends to error committed by parties in their pleadings – Except in cases to which Section 153-A of CPC applies, where there has been appeal decree under appeal merges in decree in appeal and it is only appellate court that could correct or amend decree under Section 152 of CPC. (Paras 4 and 5)

Result: Application allowed.

JUDGMENT

Learned vice counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 has submitted that she has no objection, in case, the present application is allowed.

2. The present application has been filed for correction of the name of applicant No.3. It has been asserted that in the memo of parties, the name of applicant No.3 was shown as Kuldeep, whereas his actual name in the academic documents like matriculation certificate and Aadhar Card is Sahil Choudhary, therefore, the present application for seeking the correction of the name of the applicant No.3.

3. No reply was filed to the application.

4. It was laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Niyamat Ali Molla v. Sonargon Housing Coop. Society Ltd., (2007) 13 SCC 421 : 2007 SCC OnLine SC 1284 that the power under Section 152 of CPC is not confined to the amendment of the judgment and decree containing an error on the part of the Court. This power also extends and error committed by the parties in their pleadings. It was observed:—

“18. Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the court to correct its own error in a judgment, decree or order from any accidental slip or omission. The principle behind the said provision is actus curiae neminem gravabit i.e. nobody shall be prejudiced by an act of court.

19. The Code of Civil Procedure recognises the inherent power of the court. It is not only confined to the amendment of the judgment or decree as envisaged under Section 152 of the Code but also inherent power in general. The courts also have duty to see that the records are true and present the correct state of affair. There cannot, however, be any doubt whatsoever that the court cannot exercise the said jurisdiction so as to review its judgment. It cannot also exercise its jurisdiction when no mistake or slip occurred in the decree or order. This provision, in our opinion, should, however, not be construed in a pedantic manner. A decree may, therefore, be corrected by the court both in exercise of its power under Section 152 as also under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such a power of the court is well recognised.

20. In Samarendra Nath Sinha v. Krishna Kumar Nag [AIR 1967 SC 1440 : (1967) 2 SCR 18] this Court held : (AIR p. 1443, para 11)

“11. Now, it is well settled that there is an inherent power in the court which passed the judgment to correct a clerical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission and to vary its judgment so as to give effect to its meaning and intention.

‘Every court’, said Bowen, L.J. in Mellor v. Swire [(1885) 30 Ch D 239 (CA)] ‘has inherent power over its own records so long as those records are within its power and that it can set right any mistake in them. An order even when passed and entered may be amended by the court so as to carry out its intention and express the meaning of the court when the order was made.’

In Janakirama Iyer v. Nilakanta Iyer [AIR 1962 SC 633] the decree as drawn up in the High Court had used the words ‘mesne profits’ instead of ‘net profits’. In fact the use of the words ‘mesne profits’ came to be made probably because while narrating the facts, these words were inadvertently used in the judgment.”

21. The question came up for consideration before the Calcutta High Court in Bela Debi [AIR 1952 Cal 86], wherein it was held : (AIR pp. 89-90, paras 19-20)

“19. It will thus be seen that there is a diversity of judicial opinion as to how far a court can go in rectifying its own decree. Where, of course, the amendment is in order to carry out its own meaning, there is no doubt about the power of the Court in effecting such corrections (see St. Nazaire Co., In re [(1879) 12 Ch D 88 (CA)] ; Preston Banking Co. v. William Allsup & Sons [(1891-94) All ER Rep 688 : (1895) 1 Ch 141 (CA)] ). Nor can it be disputed that it has power to rectify mistakes which are of a ministerial kind (see Mellor v. Swire [(1885) 30 Ch D 239 (CA)] ). But the difficulty arises when it is found that the mist

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top