IMPORTANT POINT
Correction of arithmetical and typographical errors in decree can be done even without amending plaint schedule.

JUDGMENT

Sashikanta Mishra, J.—The petitioners are defendant Nos. 3 and 5 in C.S. No. 29 of 2023 and Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 5 in CMA No. 3 of 2024 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), G. Udayagiri. Said suit was filed by Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 6 (plaintiffs) while the Opposite Party No. 7 to 22 are proforma defendants. In the present application, the petitioners seek to challenge order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the Court below in the aforementioned CMA whereby, the name of the suit schedule Mouza, as per the plaint schedule, was corrected by the Court below after passing of the judgment and decree exercising power under Section 152 of CPC.

2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs seeking declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit property, declaration that the unregistered ‘Will’ dated 07.09.1981 is valid and binding on all as per law, permanent injunction and relief. The suit was decreed vide judgment dated 28.03.2024 and the corresponding decree was drawn out by the Court on 08.04.2024. On 29.04.2024, the plaintiffs filed the aforementioned CMA for correction of the suit schedule Mouza in the judgment and decree as per Section 152 of CPC, on the ground that the same was mistakenly mentioned as Raikia instead of Piserama which is a clerical mistake made by the advocate’s clerk. The present petitioner filed objection stating that the plaintiffs should have sought for amendment of the plaint schedule before adducing evidence in the suit whereby the defendants would have had opportunity to file additional written statement. Further, there is no provision in law permitting amendment of the plaint after passing of the judgment and decree.

3. The Court below, after hearing both sides allowed the petition by holding that the defendants had admitted in the written statement that the suit land is situated in Mouza Piserama. The ROR marked Ext. 1 also mentions the name of the Mouza as Piserama. On such basis, the Court held that the plaintiff should not be deprived of the fruits of the decree moreso, as defendant No.3 being examined as witness admitted that the suit schedule property is situate in Mouza Piserama. The petition for correction was thus allowed by the impugned order.

4. Heard Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties.

5. Mr. Mishra would argue that the provision under Section 152 of CPC is meant for correction of arithmetic and typographical errors committed by the Court but cannot be invoked for correction of any mistake committed by the parties in the pleadings. In the instant case, the plaintiffs never sought amendment of the plaint schedule before adducing evidence. Therefore, after passing of the decree they cannot seek correction of the decree without amending their plaint. Mr. Mishra, has relied upon the following judgments of this Court in support of his contentions:

(1) Netrananda Dalai v Ratnabati Nayak (Dead) and another, 2016 (II) ILR-CUT 372.

(2) Prakash Chandra Patra vrs. Parbati Patra and others 2022 II OLR 588.

Citing the above decisions, Mr. Mishra forcefully argues that the Court below has completely misconstrued the scope of the Section 152 of CPC by allowing the application for correction of a mistake not committed by Court but by the plaintiffs themselves.

6. Per contra, Mr. S.K.Mishra, would argue that the fact that the suit property is situated in Mouza Piserama is admitted by the defendants in their written statement. Defendant No.3 being examined D.W.1 also admitted the said fact. The ROR marked as Ext.1 mentions Mouza Piserama. Since the decree was passed in respect of the suit property which is situated in Mouza Piserama mentioning the same as Raikia would amount to depriving the plaintiffs of the fruits of the said decree. The Court below, realizing the above has therefore, rightly allowed the application for correction. As regards