Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 20827
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J
KUMAR SIDDANTH S/O JINNAPPA MUNNOLI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 102705 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. IRANAGOUDA K KABBUR
For the Respondents: SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI
The court ruled that errors within trial judgments not pertaining to the case require appellate review, as Section 152 CPC restricts corrections to clerical mistakes only.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Correction of name in school records - Writ petition filed to quash impugned order of trial Court disallowing correction of judgment under Section 152 CPC - Held, the averments in para 12 to 19 were irrelevant to the petitioner's case and likely a copy-paste error - Court lacks authority to correct substantive elements under Section 152 CPC - Petitioner must seek redress through an appeal. (Paras 3 to 6)
(B) Procedural Law - Unrelated statements in a judgment can mislead and necessitate correction - Judicial discipline respects accurate reflection of facts relevant to the case presented. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought correction of his mother's name in school records after a favorable trial Court judgment; however, the judgment contained irrelevant details not pertaining to the case.
Findings of Court:
The trial Court's inability to correct substantial matters under Section 152 issues requires an appeal for proper examination.
Issues: The legitimacy of the trial Court’s reliance on irrelevant facts in a ruling favorable to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for accurate representation of facts in judgments and the importance of pursuing appropriate appellate remedies for substantial corrections.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with liberty for appealing.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks correction of name in official records. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. court notes that irrelevancies in judgments necessitate correction. (Para 4) |
| 3. court emphasizes limitations on section 152 corrections. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. writ petition disposed; appeal is advised. (Para 7) |
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order passed in O.S.No.134/2023 Civil Judge and JMFC, Hukkeri on I.A, U/ Section 152 CPC dated 06.02.2025 at Annexure-E and consequently allow the IA.
b. Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.134 of 2023 seeking for correction of the name of the plaintiff’s mother as “Devakka” instead of “Deepa” in the school records. The trial Court vide its judgement dated 08.04.2024 allowed the said suit and directed defendants to rectify the mistake by correcting name of the petitioners as “Devakka”.
3. However in the said judgement the statements made and reasoning given from para Nos.12 to 19 are not relating to the suit of the plaintiff, but are facts which relating to some other matter, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for correction of the said judgement. By then, the Presiding Officer having been transferred, new Presiding Officer dismissed the said application by holding that under Section 152 of the CPC only clerical and arithmetic mistakes could be corrected in the judgment. It is in that background that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the facts and reasoning given in para Nos.12 to 19 have no relevance or no connection to the petitioners’ case and as such though the judgement is in favour of the petitioner, the facts as stated are required to be corrected.
5. A perusal of the judgment in OS No.134/2023 supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the averments made in para Nos . 12 to 19 of the judgment are in no way related to the case of the petitioner. It appears that the said averments have been incorporated in the judgment from some other judgment or from some other case, and/or the same is a copy-paste judgment.
6. Irrespective of the above, under Section 152 of the CPC, the trial Court would not have the power to correct the judgment inasmuch as the same would require the entire facts to be corrected, leaving out only the operative portion.
7. In that view of the matter, I pass the following;
ORDER
i. The writ petition is disposed of.
ii. The suit would have to be re-appreciated in a proper perspective, which could only be done by way of an appeal, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file an appeal by having the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act , 1963.
iii. An appeal once filed would have to be considered by the Appellate Court favourably as expeditiously as possible.
