IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^THDAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

WRIT PETITION NO. 4490 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. Y.ANIRUDHA RAO ALIAS

ANANTHARAMA RAO,

AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,

S/O. LATE KRISHNA RAO,

RESIDING AT 11/2, DR. SUBRAYA NAGAR,

2^NDSTREET,KODAMBAKAM,

CHENNAI-600 024.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. RAMESHCHANDRA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. S.RATHNA

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

D/O. LATE SRINIVASA RAO,

2. SMT. S. GEETHA

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

D/O. LATE SRINIVASA RAO,

3. SMT. SHANTHI

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

D/O. LATE SRINIVASA RAO,

4. S. RAVI PRASAD

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

S/O. LATE SRINIVASA RAO,

RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT

C/O. GOPALAKRISHNA ADIGA HOUSE,

YERMAL BADA VILLAGE,

POST YERMAL, BEHIND PETROL BUNK, UDUPI DISTRICT-574 119.

…RESPONDENTS (SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A ORDER PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI AND FDP NO.5/2016 DTD 16.12.2017 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF 152 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND RECTIFY THE MISTAKE OCCURED IN THE SKETCH AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated 16.12.2017 in FDP No.5/2016 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”). By the Impugned Order, I.A.No.2 filed by the petitioner under Sections 151 and 152 of CPC, 1908 to amend the final decree has been rejected.

2. By an order dated 16.03.2018, this Court had issued a limited emergent notice to the respondents based on the petitioner’s contention that there may be an inadvertent error in the shading on the sketch map which is annexed along with the decree sheet.

3. None appears for the respondents. Although respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 are served on 02.04.2018 and 03.04.2018 respectively, they have remained absent. The notice issued to respondent No.3 has been returned on 28.03.2018 with the postal shara ‘refused’, thus respondent No.3 is deemed to have been served as well.

4. Given the pendency of this matter for the last almost seven years and the limited notice issued, this Court deems it expedient to hear and decide the matter.

5. The learned Trial Court, after examining the provisions of Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC, came to the conclusion that once a final decree is drawn and executed by the parties, it cannot be amended or revised in the manner as is sought for by the Petitioner. Thus the Application was dismissed

6. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a final decree has been passed by the learned Trial Court.

However, his only contention is that the shading shown in the map annexed to the decree is incorrect.

7. An examination of the Application filed however shows that it is not merely a shading error that is sought to be revised but the portions qua which the decree has been passed are sought to be amended. Thus it is not for the correction of an arithmetic, clerical or typographical error that is sought to be corrected, but a modification of the decree has been sought. It is apposite to set out the relevant extract of the application below:

“Application under Sections 151 & 152 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner above named prays that the court may be pleased to amend the final decree as prayed hereunder and to grant such other and further reliefs as the court may deem fit to grant “The proposed Amendment In Page 4 Para 2 of the final decree, delete “and Schedule I and II as marked in yellow colour in respective sketches and add the following:

“S.No.36/10 II measuring 29 cents shown in red colour, marked as B Schedule, S.No.36/12B1 II measuring 22.50 cents shown in yellow colour marked as B schedule in 1^st sketch and S.No.39/12 I measuring 4.50 cents shown i