JUDGMENT

Dated this the 24th day of August, 2022 Aggrieved by the common order passed by the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam in E.A.Nos.341/2022, 475/2022 in E.P.No.643/2020 (Ext.P11), the decree-holder has filed the original petition. The respondents are the judgment debtors.

2. The concise case of the petitioner, relevant for the determination of the original petition, is: the petitioner is a Society registered under the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act. A dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondents, which led the petitioner to file ARC No.390/1987 against the respondents, under Section 69 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, 1969 (in short, 'Act'). The petition was allowed by Ext.P1 award. The petitioner filed E.P.No.643/2020 before the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam, under Section 76A of the Act, to execute the award. The respondents resisted the execution petition contending that it is time-barred. The court below upheld the respondents’ objection by Ext.P6 order. Ext.P6 order is passed by the Commercial Court, Ernakulam. The Commercial Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain an execution petition filed under Section 76A of the Act. The petitioner has challenged Ext.P6 order before this Court in O.P.(C)No.2489/2021 and C.R.P.No.380/2021. This Court has passed Ext.P7 interim order, directing the parties to maintain 'status-quo' in respect of the property involved in A.R.C.No.390/1987. While so, the respondents approached the court below and filed E.A.No.341/2022, under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to correct the cause title and the signature portion of Ext.P6 order. Even though the petitioner opposed the application, the court below allowed the application by the impugned Ext.P11 order. Ext.P11 is erroneous, improper and unsustainable in law. Hence, the original petition. 3. Heard; Sri.Alex M Scaria, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.R.Shyamkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Sri.Alex.M.Scaria argued that it was improper on the part of the court below to have corrected Ext.P6 order, invoking Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, C.P.C), while O.P.(C)No.2489/2021 and C.R.P.No.380/2021 are pending before this Court because Section 153 A C.P.C stipulates that when an appeal is pending, it is for the Appellate Court to decide whether or not to correct an order or decree. Hence, Ext.P11 is erroneous and irregular and is liable to be set aside.

5. Sri.C.R.Shyamkumar defended the impugned order and contended that the court below has corrected an inadvertent clerical mistake in Ext.P6 order, which does not in any way prejudice the petitioner. A reading of the impugned order would reveal that the court below is a civil as well as a commercial court. It was the office of the court below that committed the mistake; therefore, the court below was well within its bounds to correct its own mistake. The contention that, in view of the pendency of the C.R.P, the court below is statutorily restrained from correcting its own order is wholly untenable. The original petition may be dismissed.

6. The point is whether there is any error, illegality, or impropriety in the court below correcting Ext.P6 by Ext.P11 order.

7. The court below in Ext.P11 has cogently explained the reason for carrying out the correction in Ext.P6 order. Paragraphs Nos. 7 to 12 of the Ext.P11 reads as follows:

“7. Point No.1:- It is clear from the records that E.P.643/2020 was filed by the respondent herein being the decree holder to execute the award passed in ARC.390/1987 before this court "The Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam". Judgment debtor entered appearance and filed objection challenging the executability of the decree. The matter was heard and disposed off by this court as Principal Sub Court. It is crystal clear that, all the proceedings since filing of the execution petition till its culmination were before this court "The Pr