IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

WRIT PETITION NO. 15573 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

USHA @ S.PADMA

D/O S.SHANKAREGOWDA,

W/O RAJU,

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

R/O HOSAKERE VILLAGE,

KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK,

MANDYA DISTRICT-571419.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. VINAY.D.HOSMATH., ADVOCATE)

AND:

MAHALINGAIAH

S/O KADEGOWDA,

AGED ABOUT MAJOR,

R/O HOSAKERE,

KOPPA HOBLI,

MADDUR TALUK,

MANDYA DISTRICT-571419.

…RESPONDENT

(SERVED)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-E PASSED BY THE PRL ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) MADDUR IN FDP NO.36/2000 DTD.18.10.2019 ON IA

UNDER SECTION 152 OF CPC GRANT.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition has been filed seeking to challenge an order dated 18.10.2019 in O.S.No.291/1988 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Maddur, (Mahalingaiah Vs. Usha @ S.Padma) (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”). By the Impugned Order, an application under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred as ‘CPC’) seeking a correction/amendment of the final decree passed, filed by the petitioner/respondent No.2 has been dismissed.

2. The learned Trial Court has by the Impugned Order held that the amendments sought for are not clerical or arithmetic mistakes.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/respondent No.2 admits that a final decree was passed by the learned Trial Court on 21.01.2004 and he however submits that the final decree was not in terms of the preliminary judgment and decree dated 24.03.2000 passed in O.S.No.291/88.

4. This Court has perused the application filed by the petitioner/respondent No.2 under Section 152 of the CPC. The application sets out that the court be pleased to amend the final decree along with the preliminary decree. The affidavit annexed along with the application sets out the details including the subsequent events that have taken place in respect of the suit schedule properties as well as refers to various orders passed. Clearly, the petitioner/respondent No.2 is not seeking corrections of either arithmetical, clerical or typographical, but is seeking a modification of the decree.

5. It is settled law that final decree cannot be modified or amended unless a challenge is made before the Appellate Court or a review petition is filed before the Court passing the decree. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v.

Darshan Singh, 1(2004) 1 SCC 328 has held as under:

“12. Section 152 provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. The exercise of this power contemplates the correction of mistakes by the court of its ministerial actions and does not contemplate passing of effective judicial orders after the judgment, decree or order. The settled position of law is that after the passing of the judgment, decree or order, the same becomes final subject to any further avenues of remedies provided in respect of the same and the very court or the tribunal cannot and, on mere change of view, is not entitled to vary the terms of the judgments, decrees and orders earlier passed except by means of review, if statutorily provided specifically therefor and subject to the conditions or limitations provided therein. The powers under Section 152 of the Code are neither to be equated with the power of review nor can be said to be akin to review or even said to clothe the court concerned under the guise of invoking after the result of the judgment earlier rendered, in its entirety or any portion or part of it The corrections contemplated are of correcting only accidental omissions or mistakes and not all omissions and mistakes which might have been committed by the court while passing the judgment