IMPORTANT POINT
Correction in Judgment/Decree – mistake made by parties in a deed upon which suit is founded and repeated in judgment, decree or order, may or may not be an ‘accidental slip or omission’ – Court cannot go into any disputed questions – Court cannot correct errors anterior to proceedings before it.

ORDER

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Order dated 28th March, 2023 (Annexure-5) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Balliguda in FDCS No.12 of 2019 (arising out of CS No.12 of 2019) is under challenge in this CMP, whereby allowing an application filed by the Plaintiffs/Opposite Parties under Section 152 CPC, learned trial Court inserted seven Plot numbers, which were not available in the plaint. It also directed to correct the Plot No.250 in Khata No.36.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the suit was filed for partition and a preliminary decree has been passed. In the plaint, the Plaintiffs described the suit property as under:—

“The suit lands recorded in a joint manner by the Settlement Authorities in the names of Balaram Padhan, Kandha Pradhan and Sadura Pradhan.

In respect of Khata No.30, the Plaintiffs have mentioned some Plot numbers and stated along with “seven other plots”. Likewise, in respect of Khata No.36, the Plaintiffs sought for partition of Plot No.250, which is not available in the said Khata. Evidence were led by the parties on the basis of the materials available on record and a preliminary decree was passed. During Final Decree proceeding, partition could not be effected in the filed as some Plot numbers of Khata No.30 was not stated either in the plaint or in the preliminary decree. Likewise, Plot No.250 was not a part of Khata No.36 of the schedule of the land. In order to overcome the latches on the part of the Plaintiffs in the plaint, they filed an application under Section 152 CPC. Entertaining such application, the impugned order has been passed incorporating seven other Plots in the preliminary decree by substituting Plot No.350 in place of Plot No.250 under Khata No.36.

3.1 It is submitted that Order VII Rule 3 CPC casts burden on the Plaintiff to describe the suit property properly. Further Section 152 CPC does not permit a party to amend the pleading. By exercising power under Section 152 CPC, learned trial Court essentially allowed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which is not permissible in law. Since the Plaintiffs have not stated some Plot numbers in Khata No.30 and wrongly stated the Plot No.250 in respect of Khata No.36, he has to suffer the consequence. By such amendment in the judgment and preliminary decree, learned trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction, which is not the scope and ambit of Section 152 CPC. He also relied upon a decision in the case of Pratap Chandra Patra and others Vs. Parbati Patra and others [CMP No.97 of 2021 disposed of on 30th June, 2022], wherein, relying upon several case laws and discussing the scope of ambit of Section 152 CPC, this Court at para-9, held as under:—

9. In view of the discussion made in the aforesaid case law, there remains no iota of doubt that an application under Section 152 C.P.C. cannot be entertained in an execution proceeding. Further, an error in the judgment or order committed by the Court due to accidental slip or omission can be corrected by the said Court. It is based on the principle ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit that ‘An act of court can prejudice no one’ (see U.P.SRTC vrs. Imtiaz Hussain, reported in AIR 2006 SC 649). It further appears that there is no concession from the part of the Defendants to correct the alleged error in the judgment and decree or in the schedule of the plaint. In that view of the matter, the case law cited in Santosh Kumar Sahoo (supra) has no application to the case at hand. Further, rest of the case laws as relied upon by learned counsel for