IMPORTANT POINT
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 rectified, perverse intentional mistakes need to be rectified with more promptitude.

JUDGMENT (CAV)

The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners seeking deletion of certain statement/claim mentioned in remark column in the decree in Title Appeal No. 57 of 2001 with further relief to set aside the order dated 17.02.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-V, Araria, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioners under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) has been disposed of as not maintainable.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the plaintiffs/respondents/petitioners initially filed a suit for declaration of title over Revisional Survey Plot Nos.3692, 3693 and 3695 of RS Khata No. 871 having an area 38.75 acres of Mauza-Haria, District-Araria and also for declaration that name of the defendant-State recorded in the Revisional Survey Khatiyan with respect to suit land was wrong. Initially the suit was filed by eight plaintiffs whereafter on death of one of the plaintiffs, substitution was made and plaintiff no. 6B was impleaded after death of his predecessor-in-interest, who was original plaintiff no. 6. The present petitioners as well as proforma respondents were initially plaintiffs and successor-in-interest of plaintiffs. Plaintiff no. 6B, Sarwar Alam, was impleaded as respondent no. 68 in Title Appeal No. 57 of 2001 filed against the judgment and decree of Title Suit No. 818 of 1962 in which the judgment was passed on 31.08.1998 and the decree was sealed and signed on 10.09.1998. The decree in the said title suit was to the following effect:—

“The suit be and the same is hereby decreed on contest with cost. It is further declared that title of the plaintiffs over the land in suit. It is also further declared that RS Khatiyan entry with respect of land in suit in the name of defendant is wrong”

The aforesaid judgment and decree were challenged by the State of Bihar in Title Appeal No. 57 of 2001, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 11.01.2021 and decree dated 16.01.2021. It transpires from the decree dated 16.01.2021 that the names of respondents, heirs of respondents and remark column were mentioned as part of decree on seven pages. The remarks column of the decree of Title Appeal No. 57 of 2001 mentioned only about the status of all respondents/legal heirs by recording that the name of respondents/legal heirs has been deleted, except for respondent nos. 68, 91 and 92. Against respondent no. 68, in the remarks column of the decree, it has been mentioned as under:—

“According to petition filed on 04.1.2021 on behalf of respondent no. 68, the respondent have private partition an area of 14 (Fourteen) Bighas land from the R.S. Plot No. 3693 and an area of 21 decimal from R.S. Plot no. 3692 and an area of 21 decimal from RS Plot No. 3695 under R.S. Khata No. 871 fell to the share of respondent no. 68, namely Sarwar Alam and he has been coming in exclusive peaceful possession.”

Against respondent nos. 91 and 92, it has been mentioned in the remarks column that “All Share purchased by Respondent no. 68”. In the present petition, the incorporation of these facts in the remarks column has been challenged. It also transpires that after the passing the judgment and decree in Title Appeal No. 57 of 2001, an application dated 11.02.2021 has been filed on behalf respondents of title appeal regarding correction in the father’s name of some respondents, name of respondents and also for deletion of the remarks mentioned in the column of respondent no. 68, which has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-V, Araria vide order dated 17.02.2021, which is also under challenge before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have challenged the incorporation of extraneous material in the decree and the order rejecting the application filed for deletion of this portion from the decree and correcting the names of some of the responde