Under Section 152 of CPC, the courts can amend judgments to correct previously unopposed names, even if the error is non-clerical.

JUDGEMENT

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr.S. P. Kotia on behalf of the petitioners and learned AGP Mrs.Megha Chitaliya for respondent State. 2. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent State.

3. By way of the present petition, the petitioners challenge an order dated 19.9.2022 passed by the learned Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Bhavnagar in Misc. Civil Application No.88 of 2021 in Land Reference Case No.424 of 2007.

4. Learned Advocate Mr.Kotia for the petitioners would submit that Misc. Civil Application No.88 of 2021 in Land Reference Case No.424 of 2007 had been preferred inter alia praying for modification of the common judgement and order dated 30.4.2018 passed in Land Reference Cases No.412 of 2007 to 434 of 2007 preferred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 insofar as it concerns Land Reference Case No.424 of 2007. By way of the said application, the applicants – present petitioners had prayed for change of name of the original applicant deceased as Baudinbhai @ Jusabbhai Alarakhbhai, instead of Baudinbhai Alarakhbha, as appearing in the common judgement and order passed in LAR No.412 to 434 of 2007, which was a mistake.

4.1. Learned Advocate Mr.Kotia would submit that in support of his application, the applicant had also relied upon the Revenue Record and whereas the learned Advocate would also submit that during pendency of the Land Reference Case, the said person had expired and his legal heirs (of the deceased) were also brought on record and whereas death certificate of the said person also reflects his name as Baudinbhai @ Jusabbhai Alarakhbhai.

4.2. Learned Advocate would submit that having regard to such circumstances, more particularly considering the scope of jurisdiction available to the learned Civil Court under Section 152 of CPC, the learned Civil Court ought to have granted the modification of the name of the deceased as prayed for, more particularly since none of the parties, i.e. brothers of the person, whose name was sought to be changed, had not objected, nor the State Government had raised any objection against such change of name. Learned Advocate would submit that under such circumstances, the learned Trial Court ought to have accepted the application for change of name and having not done so, interference of this Court is requested.

4.3. Learned Advocate Mr.Kotia, in support of his submissions, has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Tilak Raj Vs. Baikunthi Devi (D) by Lrs., reported in 2009(1) GLH 474. 5. This petition has been vehemently objected to by the learned AGP Ms. Megha Chitaliya appearing for the respondent State, who would submit that the Land Reference Case No.424 of 2007 has been pending since 2007 and the petitioners could have very well moved the learned Civil Court during such time period, and having not done so, the learned Court below could not be faulted in refusing to change the name of the deceased in the common judgement as had been requested for. To a pointed query by this Court, learned AGP would fairly submit that such application had not been objected to even by her counterpart before the learned Court below.

6. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties.

7. It appears that the application for change of name was supported by appropriate documents and whereas since there had been no opposition even from the co-applicants or from the State, prima facie in the considered opinion of this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 152 of CPC, the learned Civil Court ought to have permitted the change of name. While it appears that the learned Civil Court was under an impression that Section 152 of CPC permits only the co