Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Correction of clerical or accidental errors - Section 152 CPC empowers courts to correct clerical, typographical, arithmetical mistakes, or errors arising from accidental slips or omissions in judgments, decrees, or orders. This power is limited to correcting errors that do not require re-adjudication or substantive judicial decision. For example, Section 152 provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. ["SANJAY S/O RAMBHAU SABLE AND ANOTHER vs BHUJANGRAO S/O BHIMRAO KALE AND ANOTHER - Bombay"], ["Nityananda Naik vs Prafulla Naik - Orissa"], ["Susant Kumar @ Lita @ Litu Sahoo vs Santilata Sahoo - Orissa"], ["SMT SHILPA vs SMT GANGAMMA - Karnataka"]
Scope of Section 152 CPC - The scope is broad enough to include errors originating from pleadings that travel into the judgment or decree, not just clerical mistakes. Courts have clarified that the power of Court under Section 152 of the CPC is wide enough to incorporate the determined share of the parties in a decree by way of amendment or correction. ["Nityananda Naik vs Prafulla Naik - Orissa"], ["Susant Kumar @ Lita @ Litu Sahoo vs Santilata Sahoo - Orissa"], ["SANJAY S/O RAMBHAU SABLE AND ANOTHER vs BHUJANGRAO S/O BHIMRAO KALE AND ANOTHER - Bombay"]
Inherent powers under Section 151 CPC - Courts can invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC alongside Section 152 to correct bona fide errors, provided such correction does not amount to a fresh adjudication. The Court is empowered to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of CPC to make such correction in the judgment, subject to the same is within the scope of an error not touching upon a fresh adjudication. ["Susant Kumar @ Lita @ Litu Sahoo vs Santilata Sahoo - Orissa"], ["SANJAY S/O RAMBHAU SABLE AND ANOTHER vs BHUJANGRAO S/O BHIMRAO KALE AND ANOTHER - Bombay"]
Limitations and judicial approach - Courts have emphasized that corrections should be confined to clerical or accidental errors and not involve substantive issues or errors caused by parties' mistakes in pleadings. The correction of error pointed out by the petitioner is not an error attributable to the court and, therefore, not covered by Section 152 CPC. ["Sharad Kapoor VS Mani Chopra - Current Civil Cases"], ["Sharad Kapoor VS Mani Chopra - Jammu and Kashmir"], ["SANJAY S/O RAMBHAU SABLE AND ANOTHER vs BHUJANGRAO S/O BHIMRAO KALE AND ANOTHER - Bombay"]
Correction of decree details - Corrections such as updating the names of legal heirs or property descriptions have been allowed under Section 152, especially when such errors are clerical. For instance, the correction carried out by the Trial Court with respect to recording the names of the LRs of the defendant in the decree sheet was merely clerical within the meaning of Section 152 of CPC. ["SANJAY S/O RAMBHAU SABLE AND ANOTHER vs BHUJANGRAO S/O BHIMRAO KALE AND ANOTHER - Bombay"], ["USHA @ S PADMA vs MAHALINGAIAH - Karnataka"]
Procedure and limitations - The correction process typically involves an application by the aggrieved party, and courts assess whether the error is clerical or substantive. When errors are substantive or involve new issues, correction under Section 152 is not permissible. The exercise of this power contemplates the correction of mistakes by the court of its ministerial actions and does not contemplate passing of effective judicial orders after the judgment. ["SMT SHILPA vs SMT GANGAMMA - Karnataka"], ["Belamati Digal vs Pravabati Nayak - Orissa"]
Production of deposition evidence - In some cases, courts have allowed the production of deposition copies from other suits if relevant, asserting that such evidence pertains to the same subject matter and parties. The deposition of the plaintiff as PW.2 in O.S. No. 89 of 2013 is a relevant piece of evidence for determining the issues involved in the present suit. ["Kalikota Jayaprakash vs Kalikota Sruthi - Telangana"], ["Kalikota Jayaprakash vs Kalikota Sruthi - Telangana"]
Analysis and Conclusion:Courts recognize that Section 152 CPC is primarily intended for correcting clerical, typographical, or accidental errors that do not require re-adjudication. The power is broad enough to include errors originating from pleadings that have inadvertently traveled into judgments or decrees, such as property descriptions or names of legal heirs. When errors are substantive, involving parties' mistakes or requiring fresh adjudication, courts typically deny correction and may invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC to address bona fide errors within the scope of clerical correction. The procedural approach involves filing an application demonstrating the error as clerical or accidental, with courts emphasizing that corrections should not alter the substantive rights or involve new issues.
References:- ["SANJAY S/O RAMBHAU SABLE AND ANOTHER vs BHUJANGRAO S/O BHIMRAO KALE AND ANOTHER - Bombay"]- ["Nityananda Naik vs Prafulla Naik - Orissa"]- ["Susant Kumar @ Lita @ Litu Sahoo vs Santilata Sahoo - Orissa"]- ["Sharad Kapoor VS Mani Chopra - Current Civil Cases"]- ["Sharad Kapoor VS Mani Chopra - Jammu and Kashmir"]- ["SMT SHILPA vs SMT GANGAMMA - Karnataka"]- ["SANJAY S/O RAMBHAU SABLE AND ANOTHER vs BHUJANGRAO S/O BHIMRAO KALE AND ANOTHER - Bombay"]- ["Kalikota Jayaprakash vs Kalikota Sruthi - Telangana"]- ["Kalikota Jayaprakash vs Kalikota Sruthi - Telangana"]
In civil litigation, depositions form a critical part of the evidentiary record. But what happens when there's an error in a deposition transcript? Can it be easily corrected? The question correction of deposition under CPC often arises, prompting parties to invoke Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). However, the scope is narrowly defined, typically limited to clerical or accidental fixes, not substantive alterations. This post breaks down the legal framework, judicial precedents, and practical steps, drawing from Supreme Court rulings and High Court decisions.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information based on established case law and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.
Section 152 CPC allows courts to amend judgments, decrees, or orders to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors due to any accidental slip or omission Bhagwan Singh VS State Of Punjab - 1952 0 Supreme(SC) 34A. L. Meango VS J. C. Baviah - 1917 0 Supreme(Mad) 431. This provision applies procedurally to ensure the record accurately reflects the court's intention without revisiting the merits.
For depositions—recorded witness statements under Order XVIII CPC—corrections under Section 152 are ministerial acts. They fix superficial issues like typos or mis-transcriptions, not changes that alter testimony's substance. As clarified by the Supreme Court, Section 152 CPC is intended solely for the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slips or omissions Bhagwan Singh VS State Of Punjab - 1952 0 Supreme(SC) 34Gandhi Meenal VS Jothi Muthuramalingam - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 3227.
Once a judgment or deposition is finalized, the court becomes functus officio (without further jurisdiction), barring review or appeal for variations Gandhi Meenal VS Jothi Muthuramalingam - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 3227.
Not every error qualifies. Here's a breakdown:
In one case, a court permitted correction of a decree's cost liability as a clerical error, aligning it with the judgment's intent: Correction of a clerical mistake in decree regarding the liability for costs is permissible under Section 152 Athmuri Venkateswara Rao VS Atmakuri Pramodini Devi - 2025 Supreme(AP) 485.
Such attempts exceed Section 152. The Supreme Court in Dwaraka Das Vs. State of M.P. held: the power under Section 152 is confined to correcting mistakes of a clerical or accidental nature and does not extend to correcting omissions that go to the merits Gandhi Meenal VS Jothi Muthuramalingam - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 3227. Substantive issues require review under Section 114 or appeal under Sections 96-100 CPC A. L. Meango VS J. C. Baviah - 1917 0 Supreme(Mad) 431State Of Punjab VS Darshan Singh - 2003 7 Supreme 474.
A High Court rejected a deposition correction for lacking CPC provision: there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure to make any correction in the deposition on the ground that there was a typographical error SANJAY S/O RAMBHAU SABLE AND ANOTHER vs BHUJANGRAO S/O BHIMRAO KALE AND ANOTHER.
Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently narrowed Section 152's application:
From other rulings:- In a decree amendment case, the court stressed hearing affected parties: The court discussed the amendment of a decree... and emphasized the need for hearing the Plaintiff before making amendments that may affect vested rights S. Sachdeva VS Ashok Kumar - 2021 Supreme(Del) 1029. No notice was issued, leading to concerns over fairness.- Another emphasized inherent powers for clerical fixes but not beyond: Court's inherent power under Section 152 of CPC allows correction of clerical mistakes in judgments, ensuring parties are not prejudiced by accidental errors Athmuri Venkateswara Rao VS Atmakuri Pramodini Devi - 2025 Supreme(AP) 485.
These precedents underscore caution: corrections must be prompt, genuine, and non-prejudicial.
Facing a deposition error? Follow these steps:1. Assess the Error: Is it clerical (e.g., typo) or substantive (e.g., missing key fact)?2. File Application: For clerical issues, apply under Section 152 with supporting evidence like original notes.3. Seek Alternatives: For substance, file review (if error apparent on record) or appeal.4. Notice Requirement: Ensure opposite party is heard to avoid invalidation S. Sachdeva VS Ashok Kumar - 2021 Supreme(Del) 1029.
In practice, courts dismiss overreaching applications. One petitioner argued a mistake wasn't clerical, and the court agreed it couldn't be corrected under Section 152 Athmuri Venkateswara Rao VS Atmakuri Pramodini Devi - 2025 Supreme(AP) 485. Delays may bar relief due to finality principles.
Depositions via commission (Order XXVI) also limit post-recording changes; judges decide admissibility post-report Nilconta Gangadhar Sinai Amonkar, s/o late Gangadhar Amonkar VS Vivekanand Nandakumar Sawardekar - 2012 Supreme(Bom) 1967.
Rare exceptions exist for obvious slips, but:- No substantive review.- Prompt action required.- Courts exercise caution to protect rights.
If Section 152 fails:- Review (Order XLVII): For errors on record face.- Appeal: Challenges merits.- Recall/Revision: Limited scenarios.
Correction of deposition under CPC via Section 152 is strictly for clerical, arithmetical, or accidental errors—not substantive tweaks. Misusing it invites rejection, as courts guard against merits reconsideration post-functus officio. Key takeaway: Prioritize accuracy during recording; seek proper remedies for real issues.
Stay informed, act diligently, and consult experts to navigate CPC effectively.
#CPCSection152, #DepositionCorrection, #LegalRemediesIndia
in his deposition. ... of the deposition. ... of the deposition. ... The provisions of Order XVIII Rule 16 of the Code to hold an enquiry by resorting to the provisions of Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code
The plaintiff-respondent filed IA No.77 of 2024 under Section 152 of CPC for correction in decree. 6. ... Section 152 of CPC reads as under : “152. Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders. ... (v) that IA No.47 of 2024 filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC is be and hereby simultaneously disposed of dismissing the petition. ... He submits that such mistake is not ‘clerical’ or ‘arithmetical’ mistake and therefore could not be corrected under Section 152 CPC. ... Learned Counsel for the petitioner ....
Having discovered that incorrect recording, the This section of law can be pressed in that place in exercise of the power under Section 143 of the CPC
deposition of any witness afterwards. ... The Court rejected the application P.W.2 was recorded by the learned predecessor of the Court on16.08.2013 and there is no provision in the Code ... in the deposition on the ground that there was a typographical error. ... of Civil Procedure to make any correction in the p style="position:absolute;white-space:pre;margin:0;padding:0;top:507pt;left:203pt
. for correction of preliminary decree. ... On 5th September, 2024 the Plaintiffs filed a petition under Section 152 of the C.P.C. praying for correction of the decree in order to carve out the shares of all respective parties. ... The scope of correction of a decree in terms of the powers of the court under Section 152 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. has been well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in plethora of decisions. In State of Punjab v. ... Therefore the power of the court under Sectio....
While exercising its jurisdiction for correction, the Court is also empowered to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of C.P.C. to make such correction in the judgment, subject to the same is within the scope of an error not touching upon a fresh adjudication ... So far as the power of Court with regard to correction of a decree in terms of the provisions contained in Section 152 of C.P.C. is concerned, the same has been well settled. ... The power to amend or make correction#H....
The trial court has not appreciated the fact that Section 152 CPC is not only restricted to the correction of clerical errors that occur due to accidental slip or omission but can be invoked for correction of errors that may emanate from the pleadings and travel to the judgment and decree that is passed ... of Civil Procedure seeking correction of an error in the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2022 has been dismissed. ... The application, as is evident from the order impugned, is dismissed on the ground that the #HL_STA....
The petitioner9s application (I.A.No.24) under Section 151 of CPC is for correction of the year that is stated by the petitioner in p style="text-align: center ... ; if any correction was required, she should have brought the same to the Court9s notice immediately. ... of the deposition must be disposed of observing that the decision on the concerned Issue must be on the holistic reading of the entire evidence on record. ... cross-examination, and the other application (I.A.No.26) is for amendment of the pl....
The trial court has not appreciated the fact that Section 152 C.P.C is not only restricted to the correction of clerical errors that occur due to accidental slip or omission but can be invoked for correction of errors that may emanate from the pleadings and travel to the judgment and decree that is passed ... of Civil Procedure seeking correction of an error in the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2022 has been dismissed. ... The application, as is evident from the order impugned, is dismissed on the ground that the #HL_S....
By the Impugned Order, an application under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred as ‘CPC’) seeking a correction/amendment of the final decree passed, filed by the petitioner/respondent No.2 has been dismissed. 2. ... On an application filed by the plaintiff for correction of the decree under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the word “net” was substituted by “mesne”. This was a case of typographical mistake and, therefore, not applicable to the present case. ... ....
In the said application, no notice was issued to the Plaintiff, against whom the decree was passed, and the impugned order dated 10th April, 2019 was passed by which the decree sheet has been amended. The amendment in the decree sheet is in the following form: 4. Thereafter, an application was moved by the decree-holder/Defendant sometime in February, 2019 under Sections 151 & 152 of CPC seeking correction of errors in the abovementioned decree sheet.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: Exh. 38 Original letter No. KL/014 dated 16/05/2009 written by plaintiff to Ex. Engineer, Nakhatrana Exh. 165 Deposition in form of affidavit in lieu of Examination in Chief under Order-18 Rule-4 of CPC tendered by Mr. Hirenkumar Ramanbhai Patel and his Cross examination. 39 Original letter No. KL/017 dated 16/05/2009 written by plaintiff to Ex. Engineer, Nakhatrana.
Copy of email dated 13.07.2010 sent by defendant to plaintiff 44 Copy of email dated 13.07.2010 sent by plaintiff to defendant 45 Copy of email dated 14.07.2010 sent by plaintiff to defendant 46 Copy of email dated 07.12.2010 sent by plaintiff to defendant 47 Copy of email dated 05.11.2011 sent by plaintiff to defendant 48 Copy of email dated 10.02.2012 sent by plaintiff to defendant 49 ....
The Plaintiff No. 1 has admitted having given the depositions by him and his father late Bhaskaranand Agarwal in Civil Suit No. 76 of 1986. There is no statement of Bhaskaranand Agarwal or of Plaintiff no. 1 that the deposition made by them upon oath in the earlier suit proceeding relied upon by the defendants for the purpose of the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC are false.
In the course of such exercise, the learned Judge can always consider any objections and/or decide as to whether any documents which have been produced before the commissioner can be marked as an exhibit. For the purpose of exhibiting the documents, the personal present of the witness may not be necessary. Order 26 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code clearly provides in what circumstances such deposition can be read in evidence. In this context, it is clearly provided under Order 26 Rule 8 of CPC that the learned Judge would have to pass an appropriate order accepting such depositio....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
