CRP (NPD) No.1163 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 10.06.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

CRP (NPD) No.1163 of 2021

and

CMP No.8926 of 2021

1. Rani

S.Shanmugam (died)

2. S. Narayanan

3. S. Murugan

…Petitioners/Defendants

Vs.

V. Sivaraj

…Respondent/Plaintiff

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of

India, against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A. No.1 of 2019 in

O.S. No.75 of 2007 by the Principal District Munsif, Kancheepuram, dated

18.09.2019 to be set aside.

For petitioners

... Mr.A.S. Sathiesh Kumar

1/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CRP (NPD) No.1163 of 2021

ORDER

(Heard through video conference)

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are

the defendants in the suit, aggrieved by the order dated 18.09.2019 in I.A.

No.1 of 2019 in O.S. No.75 of 2007 passed by the Trial Court under Section

152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity “CPC”), whereby, the Trial

Court has amended the decree.

2.

The respondent, who is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S. No.75 of

2007, has sought for a specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated

20.11.2006 against the petitioners/defendants. He had sought for the

following reliefs in the suit O.S. No.75 of 2007:

a) to grant a decree in favour of the Plaintiff for Specific

Performance of Executed Sale Deed dated 20.11.2006 by directing the

defendants to register the executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and

on their failure, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to register the Deed in

favour of the Plaintiff and deliver the possession of the suit properties.

b) award the cost of the suit.

c) pass such further or other relief as this Hon'ble Court deem fit

and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CRP (NPD) No.1163 of 2021

3. The Trial Court has passed an ex parte decree in favour of the

respondent/plaintiff on 21.01.2008. The operative portion of the judgment,

dated 21.01.2008 reads as follows :

“gpujpthjpahy; 20/11/2006 md;W jhth

brhj;jpw;F

vHjpf;bfhLj;j

fpuag;gj;jpuj;ij

thjpapd; bgaUf;F gjpt[ bra;J jhth brhj;jpd;

Rthjpdj;ij

thjpapd;

trk;

xg;gilf;f

ntz;Lbkd;W Vw;wij Mw;Wjy; ghpjhuk; nfhhpa[k;.

bryt[j;bjhif nfhhpa[k; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;lJ

,j;jhth.

thjp jug;gpy; th/rh/1 tprhhpf;fg;gl;L

th/rh/M/1 kw;Wk; 2 FwpaPL bra;ag;gl;lJ/ tHf;F

epUgpf;fg;gl;lJ/

tHf;F

bryt[j;bjhifa[lk;

nfhhpago jPh;g;ghiz bra;ag;gl;lJ/”

4. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff noticed the following omission

in the decree :

“In case of failure of the petitioners/defendants to

execute and register the sale deed, the Court will have to

execute the same in favour of the respondent/plaintiff”.

Hence, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Section 152 CPC

3/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CRP (NPD) No.1163 of 2021

on the ground that the decree has omitted by accidental slip to include the

following sentence “on their failure, the Court shall execute and register

the sale deed in favour of the respondent / plaintiff”.

5. The Trial Court, by its order dated 18.09.2019, which is under

challenge in this revision in I.A. No.1 of 2019, has allowed the application

filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Section 152 CPC.

6. The petitioners/defendants have raised the following grounds in

this revision for challenging the impugned order dated 18.09.2019 passed in

I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S. No.75 of 2007 :

a) The application under Section 152 CPC has been filed

by the respondent/plaintiff after a lapse of 11 years from the date

of the judgment dated 21.01.2008;

b) Section 152 CPC will come into play only when there

are clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the judgment;

c) The impugned order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the

4/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CRP (NPD) No.1163 of 2021

Trial Court will amount to altering the earlier judgment dated

21.01.2008; and

d