Courts possess inherent power under Section 151 and specific power under Section 152 of the CPC to correct accidental slips or omissions in a judgment or decree, including property boundaries, to ensure the decree is executable and records are accurate, provided no prejudice is caused.

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 02.08.2023 passed in I.A.No.194 of 2022 in O.S.No.221 of 2017 by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

Heard Sri P. Pravin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Chandra Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed I.A. No.194 of 2022 under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C R/w. Sec. 151 C.P.C. to amend the boundaries mentioned in the plaint; mentioned as North: House No.4 L.I.G, South: House No.6 L.I.G, East: 12 Mtrs Wide Road, West: Private land to be amended as North: 12 Mtrs Road, South: Private Land, East: House No.4 L.I.G, West: House No.6 L.I.G, and sought for correction of the boundaries in the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.221 of 2017 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar. But, the trial court dismissed the said I.A. by observing as follows:

“That the proposed corrections i.e. correction of boundaries are not at all omissions and mistakes, which might have been committed by this Court while passing the judgment, decree or order. Hence, this petition is devoid of merits.”

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Court has inherent power to allow an application filed for amendment of plaint and decree stating that the missing details in the schedule were due to inadvertent mistake and no prejudice would be caused if plaint is amended furnishing the missing details. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Niyamat Ali Molla Vs. Sonargon Housing Cooperative Society Ltd., and others ¹(2007) 13 SCC 421

A perusal of the above judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

“18. Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the court to correct its own error in a judgment, decree or order from any accidental slip or omission. The principle behind the said provision is actus curiae neminem gravabit i.e. nobody shall be prejudiced by an act of court.

19. The Code of Civil Procedure recognises the inherent power of the court. It is not only confined to the amendment of the judgment or decree as envisaged under Section 152 of the Code but also inherent power in general. The courts also have duty to see that the records are true and present the correct state of affair. There cannot, however, be any doubt whatsoever that the court cannot exercise the said jurisdiction so as to review its judgment. It cannot also exercise its jurisdiction when no mistake or slip occurred in the decree or order. This provision, in our opinion, should, however, not be construed in a pedantic manner. A decree may, therefore, be corrected by the court both in exercise of its power under Section 152 as also under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such a power of the court is well recognised.

25. It is not a case where the defendants could be said to have been misled. It is now well settled that the pleadings of the parties are to be read in their entirety. They are to be construed liberally and not in a pedantic manner. It is also not a case where by reason of an amendment, one property is being substituted by the other. If the court has the requisite power to make an amendment of the decree, the same would not mean that it had gone beyond the decree or passing any decree. The statements contained in the body of the plaint have sufficiently described the suit lands. Only because some blanks in the schedule of the property have been left, the same, by itself, may not be a ground to deprive the respondents from the fruit of the decree. If the appellant herein did not file any written statement, he did so at its own peril. Admittedly, he examined himself as a witness in the case. He, therefore, was aware of the issues raised in the suit. It is stated that an Advocate Commissioner has also been appointed.