Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22737

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R.Krishna Kumar, J
Jinendra Kumar Gandhi – Appellant
Versus
Narayanamma – Respondent
WP No. 16149 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Paras Jain
For the Respondents: S. Vivek Reddy, Subba Reddy K.N, Dilip Rajan

Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure is restricted to correcting clerical or arithmetical slips. It cannot be used to modify substantive findings or the operative quantum of a final decree once the court has become functus officio and the decision has attained finality.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 151 and 152 - Correction of clerical, arithmetical or accidental slips - Scope - Rectification of final decree - Power of Court to correct errors does not extend to substantive modification of findings or altering merits of adjudications - Once a final order is passed and appeals are exhausted or dismissed, Court becomes functus officio regarding the subject matter of the decree. (Paras 10, 11, and 14)

(B) Civil Procedure - Mesne profits - Method of calculation - Mere correction of a numerical error in one paragraph of an order does not automatically necessitate the modification of the final calculated quantum in the operative portion, especially when the latter was derived from specific findings that were intentionally recorded by the Court. (Paras 7, 8, and 14)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought rectification of a final decree regarding mesne profits through applications under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. They contended that a figure used in the calculation was an arithmetical error and sought consequential amendments to the final operative portion of the decree awarding a higher quantum of mesne profits based on the corrected figure. The Trial Court dismissed these applications, holding that such changes would alter the substance of the decree, which had already attained finality after the dismissal of their previous appeals.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that Section 152 CPC is limited to correcting clerical or arithmetical slips and cannot be employed to re-open issues of substantive calculation or findings that were intentionally determined during the original proceedings. Since the Trial Court had adopted specific values based on the evidence presented in the initial inquiry, and these findings attained finality, the present request to redefine the quantification constitutes an attempt to circumvent the final judgment rather than a mere correction of an accidental slip.

Issues: The main issues were whether an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure could be used to seek consequential changes in the final quantum of mesne profits awarded, and whether the Court retains jurisdiction to modify a final decree that has attained legal finality.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the power to correct errors under Section 152 CPC does not permit the Court to pass effective judicial orders on merits or vary the terms of a decree once the Court has become functus officio. Rectification is restricted to ministerial errors and does not extend to re-adjudicating the quantum of mesne profits if the underlying calculation was based on specific findings of the court.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. limitations of section 152 cpc: clerical errors versus substantive judicial modifications. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. dismissal of petition due to lack of merit and finality of decree. (Para 12 , 13)

WRIT PETITION NO. 16149 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 04-12-2024 PASSED IN F.D.P. NO. 17 OF 2007 BY OF I.A. U/S 159 OF CPC VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH-11), (ANNEXURE-G) & ETC.,

THIS PETITION IS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON 13.01.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

CAV ORDER

This petition by the petitioners - Decree holders in FDP No.17/2007 is directed against the impugned order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the 6th Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, whereby the application filed by the petitioners – decree holders under Section 152 CPC was dismissed by the trial court.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:-

The petitioners instituted the instant final decree proceedings in FDP No.17/2007 which was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 31.03.2015 holding that the petitioners are entitled for mesne profits from the respondents and by issuing certain directions. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application under Section 152 CPC seeking correction of an alleged arithmetical / clerical / typographical error in line No.9 of paragraph-36 at page-31 of the aforesaid order dated 31.03.2015 passed in the said FDP No.17/2007 and the said application was accordingly allowed by the trial court vide final order dated 27.01.2016 directing correction of the said mistake only in relation to line No.9 of paragraph-36 at page-31 of the aforesaid order dated 31.03.2015. Thereafter, the petitioners filed one more application under Section 152 CPC seeking rectification of the consequential changes in pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 27.01.2016 and the said application was disposed of by directing the registry / office of the trial court to effect consequential changes in the decree by inserting Rs.8/- in the place of Rs.96 paisa while calculating mesne profits.

2.1 Meanwhile, the original order dated 31.03.2015 passed in FDP No.17/2007 was assailed by the petitioners herein by preferring an appeal in RFA No.743/2015 which was dismissed for non-prosecution / default by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide final order dated 08.11.2016.

2.2 Subsequently, the petitioners filed the instant application dated 03.06.2021 once again invoking Section 152 CPC and requesting calculation of mesne profits at paragraph-38 and operative portion at page-47 of the order dated 31.03.2015 to be amended and rectified pursuant to the order dated 16.08.2017 passed in FDP No.17/2007 vide order dated 31.03.2015 as amended and rectified by order dated 16.08.2017 passed by the trial court. The said application having been opposed by the respondents herein, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application, aggrieved by which, petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Senior counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial court committed an error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners by improper and erroneous appreciation of the material on record and as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the application filed by the petitioners deserves to be allowed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel places reliance upon the following judgments:-

i) Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan v. Hari Prasad Bhuyan - (2003) 1 SCC 197;

ii) M/s Marshall Sons & Co. Ltd. v.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22737

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAS.R.Krishna Kumar, JJinendra Kumar Gandhi – AppellantVersusNarayanamma – RespondentWP No. 16149 of 2025

Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure is restricted to correcting clerical or arithmetical slips. It cannot be used to modify substantive findings or the operative quantum of a final decree once the court has become functus officio and the decision has attained finality.

Cases Referred (12)

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R.Krishna Kumar, J
Jinendra Kumar Gandhi – Appellant
Versus
Narayanamma – Respondent
WP No. 16149 of 2025