IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5581 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. PRAKASH CHAND MEHTA S/O CHOUTHMAL AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO. 10, TULASI PLAZA

3RD CROSS, S V LANE, CHICKPET BANGALORE - 560053.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHETAN DESAI., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. ASHWINI KUMAR S/O SUKUMAR AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT NO.21, 3RD FLOOR BASAVANAGUDI ROAD Digitally signed by ANCHEPET, BANGALORE - 560 053.

HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH

2. SMT LALITHA COURTOF KARNATAKA W/O LATE M SUKUMAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

3. SMT SHASHIKALA D/O M SUKUMAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

4. SMT TEJASWINI D/O M SUKUMAR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

5. SRI MALATHESH KUMAR D/O M SUKUMAR AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO. 143/21 MANJUNATHANILAYA, PRESENT NO. 21 ANCHEPET, BASAVANA TEMPLE STREET BENGALURU -560 053.

…RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 TO R5 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED: 17.04.2025)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER 30/01/2025 PASSED BY THE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH NO.16), IN OS NO. 4968/2006, DISMISSING THE I.A FILED UNDER SECTION 152 OF CPC DATED 09/01/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff under Article

227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 30.01.2025 passed on IA in O.S.No.4968/2006 by the XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH No.16), whereby IA filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Section 151 of CPC was dismissed.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and possession. The suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 13.03.2015.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, while drawing the decree, the schedule has been wrongly mentioned, the words ‘entire III Floor’ has been omitted. Since the same is a typographical error, he filed an application under Section 152 of CPC. The trial court dismissed the application only on the ground that the application filed under Section 152 is not maintainable. 4. It is very clear from Section 152 of CPC that, if there is a clerical or arithmetic mistake in the judgments, decrees or orders or any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties.

Therefore, filing a separate petition is not necessary.

5. In view of the above, the order passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside.

6. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

(ii) The order dated 30.01.2025 passed on IA in O.S.No.4968/2006 by the XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH No.16) is set aside.

(iii) The trial court is directed to re-consider the application filed by the petitioner under Section 152 of CPC, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the parties.

Sd/-

(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD)

JUDGE CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43