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…!
The scope includes correcting typographical errors, mistakes in pleadings, or omissions that do not require substantive re-litigation, and such corrections are aimed at preventing prejudice and ensuring the decree reflects the true intention of the court ["Sarabjit Singh VS Joginder Singh - Punjab and Haryana"] ["B. Dheenadhayabaran VS Rathna Vel - Madras"] ["Sharad Kapoor VS Mani Chopra - Current Civil Cases (2022)"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Sarabjit Singh VS Joginder Singh - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["Harmeet Singh VS Ravi Inder Singh, Deceased Through Legal Representatives - Delhi"]- ["Nityananda Naik vs Prafulla Naik - Orissa"]- ["Sakshi Khurana, D/o. Lt. Rohin Khurana VS Raj Kumar, S/o Sh. Teerath Ram - Jammu and Kashmir"]- ["B. Dheenadhayabaran VS Rathna Vel - Madras"]- ["Kalkonda Pandu Rangaiah VS Kalkonda Krishnaiah - 1973 0 Supreme(AP) 28"]- ["Pinipe Mallamma VS Kunche Chinna Mangamma - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["KANNAN VS NARAYANI - Kerala"]- ["Maldar Mahaboob Sab VS Allabakash - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["Sharad Kapoor VS Mani Chopra - Current Civil Cases (2022)"]
In the intricate world of civil litigation, accuracy in judgments and decrees is paramount. But what happens when a simple clerical error—like a typographical mistake or miscalculation—slips into a lower court's decree? A common question arises: under Sections 152 and 153 CPC, can the High Court correct clerical errors in the decree of a lower court? This issue frequently puzzles litigants, lawyers, and courts alike, as it balances the need for finality in judgments with the pursuit of justice through minor corrections.
This blog post delves into the legal framework, judicial precedents, scope, limitations, and practical recommendations. We'll explore how these provisions empower courts, including the High Court, to rectify inadvertent errors without delving into the merits of the case. Note that this is general information based on established case law and should not be considered specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Under Sections 152 and 153 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, the High Court—or any court—generally has the authority to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees, or orders from lower courts. These corrections apply only to accidental, clerical errors or those arising from slips or omissions, and they must not affect the substantive rights or merits of the case. Gulzara Singh VS Devinder Singh - 2004 0 Supreme(P&H) 655
Key points include:- Broad empowerment: Courts can act suo motu (on their own) or upon a party's application, at any time. Banshilal Alias Banshidhar s/o Rikhab Dasji VS Ranamal s/o Tulsidas - 2017 0 Supreme(Raj) 1521- Purpose: To ensure the decree reflects the court's true intention without re-litigating the case.- High Court's role: As a superior court, it can correct errors in lower court decrees if they are purely clerical. Gulzara Singh VS Devinder Singh - 2004 0 Supreme(P&H) 655
For instance, the High Court has the power to correct typographical or clerical mistakes in decrees passed by lower courts, even when the appeal was dismissed in limine, emphasizing that errors arising from accidental slip or omission can be corrected by the court. Gulzara Singh VS Devinder Singh - 2004 0 Supreme(P&H) 655
Section 152 CPC explicitly allows correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees, or orders. Section 153 extends this to errors from accidental slips or omissions. The phrase at any time in Section 152 underscores that this power persists beyond the judgment's finality, unbound by procedural stages. Gulzara Singh VS Devinder Singh - 2004 0 Supreme(P&H) 655
Higher courts, including the High Court, exercise this over lower court outputs. In one case, the court affirmed that even after an appeal dismissal, clerical fixes are permissible to align the decree with intent. Gulzara Singh VS Devinder Singh - 2004 0 Supreme(P&H) 655
Correctable errors are limited to:- Typographical mistakes (e.g., wrong Khasra number in property descriptions). BUTTO BAI w/o LAKSHMAN GOUD VS DUMRI s/o SADDU GOUD (deceased) thr. Legal Heirs JAINWATI w/o DUMRI LAL GOUD - 2024 Supreme(MP) 295- Arithmetical miscalculations.- Accidental omissions, like failing to update party arrays post-death. DHANABHAGYAM W/O. LATE SADASIVAM VS SARASWATHY AMMAL W/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNA PILLA - 2018 Supreme(Ker) 492
A practical example: In a partition suit, the court allowed rectification of a Khasra number under Section 152 CPC, noting Section 152 of the CPC permits rectification of clerical errors in judgments when there is no dispute regarding the identity of the property. BUTTO BAI w/o LAKSHMAN GOUD VS DUMRI s/o SADDU GOUD (deceased) thr. Legal Heirs JAINWATI w/o DUMRI LAL GOUD - 2024 Supreme(MP) 295
Another: Where legal heirs weren't properly arrayed due to court office negligence, Sections 152 and 153 enabled corrections, as the office of the trial Court was apparently negligent in not carrying out the amendment by substituting the deceased plaintiff with his legal heirs. DHANABHAGYAM W/O. LATE SADASIVAM VS SARASWATHY AMMAL W/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNA PILLA - 2018 Supreme(Ker) 492
Critically, these sections do not permit:- Changes to substantive findings, reliefs, or rights. Banshilal Alias Banshidhar s/o Rikhab Dasji VS Ranamal s/o Tulsidas - 2017 0 Supreme(Raj) 1521- Review of intentional decisions or evidence re-interpretation. SRIHARI (DEAD) THROUGH LR. SMT. CH. NIVEDITHA REDDY VS SYED MAQDOOM SHAH - 2014 6 Supreme 513- Fixes for errors not apparent on the face of the record.
The Supreme Court clarified: corrections under Sections 152 and 153 CPC are limited to clerical or arithmetical mistakes and errors arising from accidental slips or omissions, and cannot be used to modify the merits of the case. Banshilal Alias Banshidhar s/o Rikhab Dasji VS Ranamal s/o Tulsidas - 2017 0 Supreme(Raj) 1521
In a case involving 12% compounding interest, the court rejected amendment, holding the direction for compounding interest at 12% was intentional and not subject to amendment under Section 152. VENKATRAMANA BHAT, S/O.GANAPATHI BHAT, K.M.SUBRAMANYA BHAT, S/O.GANAPATHI BHAT, K.M.SRIKRISHNA BHAT, S/O.K.M.KESHAVA BHAT, K.M.GANAPATHI BHAT, S/O.K.M.KESHAVA BHAT, K.M.SAKUNTHALA, D/O.K.M.KESHAVA BHAT, BAGYARATHNA, D/O.K.M.KESHAVA BHAT, PADMINI, D/O K.M.KESHAVA BHAT, REVATHI D/O..K.M.KESHAVA BHAT vs ANANTHA BHAT, S/O.ACHUTHA BHAT, JAGADEESHA, S/O.ANANTHA BHAT, SRIDHARA, S/O.ANANTHA BHAT, PRAKASHA, S/O.ANANTHA BHAT, RADHAKRISHNA, S/O.ANANTHA BHAT, MADHAVA BHAT, S/O.ACHUTHA BHAT - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 7812
Post-finality, judges become functus officio (without further power), limited to clerical fixes: At the most the trial Judge can correct any arithmetical/clerical errors as contemplated under the provisions of Sections 152 and 153. M. C. Bachappa S/o Late Chikkamariyappa VS Nagarathnamma S/o Late Angadi Muninanjappa - 2017 Supreme(Kar) 1266
Even during appeals, typographical errors like tube well numbers can be corrected: Typographical and clerical mistake can be corrected by the Court even after passing of judgment and decree--It can be corrected even during pendency of the appeal. Gurpal Singh VS Kamaljit Kaur - 2017 Supreme(P&H) 813
Landmark cases shape this doctrine:- Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa: Limits corrections to non-merits issues. Banshilal Alias Banshidhar s/o Rikhab Dasji VS Ranamal s/o Tulsidas - 2017 0 Supreme(Raj) 1521- Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho: Bars re-interpretation of law or evidence. Kalkonda Pandu Rangaiah VS Kalkonda Krishnaiah - 1973 0 Supreme(AP) 28- Sections 151 interplay: Inherent powers under Section 151 complement but don't override Section 152's specifics. Sharad Kapoor VS Mani Chopra - Current Civil Cases (2022)
These affirm: Sections 151 and 152 CPC empower courts to correct clerical or arithmetic mistakes or errors arising from accidental slips or omissions, but not to review or modify the substantive terms. Sharad Kapoor VS Mani Chopra - Current Civil Cases (2022)
To navigate this:- For parties: File applications specifying the error as clerical or accidental, providing evidence (e.g., record comparisons). Avoid merit-based arguments.- For courts: Distinguish slips from substantive issues; document rationale to prevent appeals.- Timing: Act promptly, though at any time applies, delays may invite scrutiny.- Alternatives: For merits errors, pursue review (Order 47), appeal, or revision.
Higher courts should exercise caution: Higher courts should exercise caution and ensure corrections are limited to clerical or accidental slips, avoiding any modification of substantive rights.
In summary, the High Court typically can correct clerical errors in lower court decrees under Sections 152 and 153 CPC, fostering justice without undermining finality. However, this power is narrowly tailored to accidental slips, excluding merits alterations.
Key Takeaways:- Yes for clerical/arithmetical/accidental errors: Anytime, suo motu or on application. Gulzara Singh VS Devinder Singh - 2004 0 Supreme(P&H) 655- No for substantive changes: Use appeals/reviews instead. Banshilal Alias Banshidhar s/o Rikhab Dasji VS Ranamal s/o Tulsidas - 2017 0 Supreme(Raj) 1521- Precedents guide: From Khasra fixes to party array omissions. BUTTO BAI w/o LAKSHMAN GOUD VS DUMRI s/o SADDU GOUD (deceased) thr. Legal Heirs JAINWATI w/o DUMRI LAL GOUD - 2024 Supreme(MP) 295DHANABHAGYAM W/O. LATE SADASIVAM VS SARASWATHY AMMAL W/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNA PILLA - 2018 Supreme(Ker) 492
This framework ensures decrees accurately reflect judicial intent. For tailored advice, engage a legal professional familiar with your jurisdiction's nuances.
References include judgments like Gulzara Singh VS Devinder Singh - 2004 0 Supreme(P&H) 655, Banshilal Alias Banshidhar s/o Rikhab Dasji VS Ranamal s/o Tulsidas - 2017 0 Supreme(Raj) 1521, Sharad Kapoor VS Mani Chopra - Current Civil Cases (2022), VENKATRAMANA BHAT, S/O.GANAPATHI BHAT, K.M.SUBRAMANYA BHAT, S/O.GANAPATHI BHAT, K.M.SRIKRISHNA BHAT, S/O.K.M.KESHAVA BHAT, K.M.GANAPATHI BHAT, S/O.K.M.KESHAVA BHAT, K.M.SAKUNTHALA, D/O.K.M.KESHAVA BHAT, BAGYARATHNA, D/O.K.M.KESHAVA BHAT, PADMINI, D/O K.M.KESHAVA BHAT, REVATHI D/O..K.M.KESHAVA BHAT vs ANANTHA BHAT, S/O.ACHUTHA BHAT, JAGADEESHA, S/O.ANANTHA BHAT, SRIDHARA, S/O.ANANTHA BHAT, PRAKASHA, S/O.ANANTHA BHAT, RADHAKRISHNA, S/O.ANANTHA BHAT, MADHAVA BHAT, S/O.ACHUTHA BHAT - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 7812, BUTTO BAI w/o LAKSHMAN GOUD VS DUMRI s/o SADDU GOUD (deceased) thr. Legal Heirs JAINWATI w/o DUMRI LAL GOUD - 2024 Supreme(MP) 295, DHANABHAGYAM W/O. LATE SADASIVAM VS SARASWATHY AMMAL W/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNA PILLA - 2018 Supreme(Ker) 492, M. C. Bachappa S/o Late Chikkamariyappa VS Nagarathnamma S/o Late Angadi Muninanjappa - 2017 Supreme(Kar) 1266, Gurpal Singh VS Kamaljit Kaur - 2017 Supreme(P&H) 813, SRIHARI (DEAD) THROUGH LR. SMT. CH. NIVEDITHA REDDY VS SYED MAQDOOM SHAH - 2014 6 Supreme 513, Commissioner Of Central Excise, New Delhi VS Modi Alkalies And Chemicals LTD. - 2004 6 Supreme 295, Kalkonda Pandu Rangaiah VS Kalkonda Krishnaiah - 1973 0 Supreme(AP) 28.
#CPC152153, #ClericalErrors, #HighCourtPowers
He further submits that there is ample power with the Court under section 152 CPC to correct such mistake/error by mentioning the correct Khasra/Rectangle number in the decree sheet. 3. Notice of motion for 17.08.2023. 4. ... Presuming the chances of human error in judgments, decrees or orders due to one reason or the other, legislators have already introduced a provision in the Civil Procedure Code under sections 151 and 152 CPC t....
All proceedings in the Court of Civil jurisdiction would fall within the scope of this phrase so as to lean in favour of Court having power under Sections 151, 152 and 153 to correct errors in the proceeding so as to amend judgment and Decree in order to do justice between the parties. ... All proceedings in the Court of Civil jurisdiction would fall within the scope of Section 153 CPC so as to lean in favour of #H....
an appeal against the preliminary decree is pending in the High Court and that the lower Court has not properly appreciated the provisions of Sections 152 and 153-A of CPC and also the decisions cited before it and particularly the one reported in AIR 1962 ... The Supreme Court held that the High Court has jurisdiction under Sections 151 and 152 CPC to make corr....
Sections 151 , 152, and 153 of the Section 152 of the code but also inherent power in general. ... is intended to amend or correct two categories of errors in judgments, decrees, or orders, namely: (a) clerical or arithmetical mistakes, and (b) errors arising from any accidental slip or omission. No elaborate discussion is required to explain what constitutes clerical or arithmetical mistakes. ... However, we clarify that, irrespective of whether an error in the judgment or ....
No doubt the power of the court to correct the errors in the judgments, decrees and orders is vested in the Court under section 152 exercisable either suo moto or on the application of a party, yet that correction has to be effected only and only in judgments, decrees or orders having been passed and ... when the basic judgment and decree had assumed finality after the same came to be upheld by the appellate court in terms of the judgment dated 21.02.2017 and that the....
The learned lower appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 7-10-2022 and dismissed the appeal. 3. ... Therefore, it is required that necessary correction be made in the plaint, judgments and decrees of the trial Court as also of lower appellate Court under section 152 of Civil Procedure Code. 15. ... under section 152, Code of Civ....
of Section 152 of the C.P.C. for correction of preliminary decree. ... Therefore the power of the court under Section 152 of the C.P.C. read with Section 151 and 153 is wide enough to incorporate the determined share of the parties in the decree by way of amendment/correction. 11. Conversely, Mr. ... The parties are allowed liberty of moving the High Court under Section 152 CPC s....
Narayani and Ors., A.I.R. 1980 Kerala 76 to contend that except in cases to which Section 153-A C.P.C. applies, where there has been an appeal the decree under appeal merges in the decree in appeal and it is only the Appellate Court that could correct or amend the decree under Section 152 of the Code ... lower appellate court was found to be not a correct law and it was held that dismissal of appe....
... In these circumstances we hold that except in cases to which S.153-A of the Code of Civil Procedure applies, where there has been an appeal the decree under appeal merges in the decree in appeal and it is only the appellate court that could correct or amend the decree under S.152 ... S.152 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers a court either on its own motion or on the application of any of ....
-A of the Code of Civil Procedure applies, where there has been an appeal, the decree under appeal merges in the decree in appeal and it is only the appellate Court that could correct or amend the decree under Section 152 of the Code. ... In the latter case, on application of principle of merger, it is only the appellate Court which has the jurisdiction under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure to ....
Similarly, Section 152 CPC empowers a Civil Court to correct clerical or arithmetic mistake in the judgment/decree or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission.
In the instant case, the trial Court had proceeded under the premise that the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff were on the party array. It is in such circumstances that the Court can resort to Sections 152 and 153 of the C.P.C. to correct the errors in the judgment and the decree. The office of the trial Court was apparently negligent in not carrying out the amendment by substituting the deceased plaintiff with his legal heirs. In fact, one of the legal heirs was examined as PW1.
Once the decree reached finality, the learned Judge who passed the judgment and decree becomes functus officio and absolutely the trial Judge, who passed the decree has no power to issue such directions. In a judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, utmost the trial Judge can correct any arithmetical/clerical errors as contemplated under the provisions of Sections 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. Beyond that, he cannot issue any directions, that too in respect of agricultural lands directing the Joint Comm....
This view was taken in case Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others vs K.K. Modi and others 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 577. 9. Even as per provisions of C.P.C under Sections 151, 152 and 153, clerical and typographical mistakes and errors in judgment and decree can be corrected by Court at any time either of its own motion or on the application moved by any of the party.
Referring to Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, the learned counsel points out that, no 'suo motu' review of a verdict passed by a civil court is possible and that 'review' is open only on an application by the parties, unless it is an instance where some clerical errors or mistakes have occurred. Even in such cases, clerical errors/mistakes can be corrected 'suo motu' by the civil court, invoking the provisions under Section 152 or 153 (as the case may be) of the CPC and not otherwise. In the instant case, the power of review has been wrongly exercised, whereby the appea....
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
