ORDER

1. Heard Sri. S.J.Puranik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Annu Bharadwaj for Sri.B.Vachan for respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner is the judgment debtor no.2 in Execution Case No.3654/2019 on the file of Addl. City Civil Court, Bengaluru. The respondents brought a suit O.S.No.4822/2014 before the City Civil Court seeking the relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 17.09.2012 executed in favour of first defendant is not binding on them, that the mortgage, charge or encumbrance, if any created by first defendant in favour of second defendant or any 3rd party is not binding on them, that the plaintiffs are the successors of late Sri. C.Ravi for a direction to second defendant to release all the property documents pertaining to the schedule property to them.

2. The suit was decreed declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit property and the sale deed dated 17.9.2012 executed in favour of first defendant in respect of suit property a sham document and not binding on the plaintiffs and also the charge or encumbrance created by first defendant in respect of suit property in favour of second defendant is also not binding on the plaintiffs. In the operative portion of the judgment there is no reference to prayer at Sl.No. ‘(d)’ sought in the plaint i.e., the direction to the second defendant to release all the property documents pertaining to the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs.

3. When the decree holders filed execution, they made an application under section 152 CPC seeking correction of the error of non-mentioning of prayer ‘(d)’ of the plaint in the judgment dated 9.2.2017. The executing court allowed the said application giving the following reason:

“15. Dhrs contended that they sought a direction to defendant no.2 who is now jdr no.2 for releasing the original documents of the schedule property in their favour. But due to some reasons the said direction not find a place in the operation portion of the judgment and decree. The principle behind the section 152 is ‘actus curaie neminem gravbit’ i.e., no body shall be prejudiced by the act of the court. In this case, the court decreed the suit with costs in its full extent. Plaintiff sought particular prayer against Jdr no.2 for releasing the original documents in their favor. But because of some reason, the order regarding said prayer has not find place in the operation portion of the judgment and decree. It is the duty of the court to get correct the judgment and decree by making proper correction. Otherwise, it is not possible for the succeeded party in getting the full justice. It is to be noted that, none of the Jdrs have challenged the judgment and decree passed. When this court decided that Jdrs have no any case against Dhrs and when the Jdrs not challenged judgment and decree put for execution, the original documents of the schedule properly not creates any interest in their favor. Therefore Jdr no.2 is liable to handover the said documents to the Dhrs. Therefore the mistake which arose in passing the judgment and decree needs to be corrected by allowing the application. The court even at this stage is having inherent powers to pass any orders to achieve justice and the said power can be exercised under either section 151 or 153 of the CPC. As per the provisions of Sec. 151, 152 and 153, it is clear that the discretionary or General power should be utilized only for corrections of mistakes arising out of clerical or arithmetical or accidental slips to do justice to the parties. Therefore application needs to be allowed. Therefore I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

I.A.No.1 filed under Section 152 CPC filed by the Dhrs is hereby allowed.

The prayer “defendant no.2 is hereby directed to hand over all the original documents to the plaintiffs” is hereby inserted in operative portion of the judgment passed.

Office is hereby directed to draw amended decree accordingly.

Call on for compliance by

9.6.2022.”

4. Learned counsel fo