Can the court permit the correction of the sale deed executed by it in the execution of the decree after 38 Yrs?

 The decree was put in execution and came to be satisfied by executing sale deed through the Court. In the execution application, due to an inadvertent error on part of the original plaintiffs, the gut numbers came to be stated as Gut No.141 instead of Gut No.111. As far as survey numbers is concerned, the survey numbers were correctly referred to and the only error was in stating the gut numbers, as a result of which in the sale deed which was executed by the Court, the suit property was mentioned as Gut No.141. After the execution of the sale deed the legal heirs of the original plaintiff for the first time in the year 1998, after the execution of the sale deed in the year 1985, noticed this error when an application was moved to mutate their names in the revenue records.

This Court further held that it would lead to a travesty of justice as the petitioners therein who had a decree in their favour passed as long back as in the year 1974 and also a sale certificate of the year 1980 would be deprived of the possession of the property on the ground of mere technicalities.

13. Considering the decision of this Court and decision in

the case of Hansabai Shripati Bhosale (supra), which is

squarely applicable to the facts of the case, the order of the

Executing Court rejecting the application is clearly unsustainable.

It needs to be noted that the powers exercised under Section 151

and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure are for the purpose of

rectifying the errors and are meant to advance real and

substantial justice to the parties. In my opinion, in a case of

correction in the gut numbers, hyper technical view has been

adopted by the Executing Court. The reasons for the delay is

clearly set out in the application and is delay is sufficiently

explained. The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are

elastic enough to apply the law in meaningful manner to subserve the ends of justice.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.4359 OF 2021

DAGADU SHIVAJI LODHE Vs BHAURAO FAKIRA DONGRE 

CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.

DATED : 17th FEBRUARY, 2023.

Print Page

Whether court can permit correction of decree in execution of decree?

In terms of order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the Court at any stage of the proceedings, may allow either party to alter or amend the pleadings. Reading of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC clearly shows that such an application would lie when the proceedings are pending before the Court. The expression used is 'at any stage of the proceedings' which imply that such an application can be moved only when the proceedings are pending and not when the proceedings had been disposed of. However, an application for amendment can be filed even at the appellate stage as appeal is considered to be an extension of the original proceedings.

13. The 'Court' referred to in Order 6 Rule 17 CPC would imply the Court before which such proceedings are pending and not the Executing Court, which has only to execute the order. It is a settled position that an Executing Court cannot go behind the decree.

14. There may be cases where the original court that passed the decree is also the Executing Court. However in such a case the application would have to be filed in the original proceedings and not in the execution proceedings.

15. Section 152 CPC reads as under:

"152. Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders:

Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties."

16. Section 152 CPC permits a Court to correct clerical, arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders arising therein from the accidental slip or omission. However, such an application has to be moved before the same Court which had passed the judgment, decree or order and not before the Executing Court.

17. Reference may also be had to Section 153 CPC which empowers the Court to amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a Suit. Such an amendment can also be carried out only by the Court which passed the relevant decree or judgment.

18. Clearly, in view of the above, impugned order of the Executing Court, treating the application under Section 152 CPC filed by the respondent as an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and thereafter, amending the memo of parties of the decree is not sustainable.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CM (M) 1173/2018 and CM Appl. 40155/2018

Decided On: 13.03.2020

 Monica Kwatra Vs. Amarjeet Singh Gulati

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.

Print Page

Whether court can correct error in judgment if it occurred due to error in pleading without amending pleading?

 The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Gulzara Singh v. Devinder Singh (2004) (3) CCC 455 wherein this Court was pleased to hold that correction in the judgment can also be made even if the error has occurred due to wrong pleadings. The Court was further pleased to hold that it was not necessary first to amend the pleadings. In view of the law laid down by this Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

4. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the application moved by the petitioners under Section 152 of the CPC is allowed. The trial Court is directed to carry out necessary correction in the order.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

Decided On: 19.01.2007

 Mrs. Meena Kumari  Vs. General Public and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V.K. Sharma, J.

Citation: AIR 2007 P&H 51

Print Page

Whether decree can be executed after amending judgment?

Perusal of the judgment of the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 225 of 1985 indicates that it was not the stand of the defendant that the suit property was located at village Gaul and not at village Shembalpimpri, as stated in the plaint. It is also not their case that under the garb of the aforesaid decree, some other property is sought to be partitioned. Under provisions of Order-XX, Rule 6 of the Code, the decree must agree with the judgment. It is to be noted that pursuant to the orders passed by the trial Court, the plaint and the decree stand amended. Merely because the judgment of the trial Court has not been corrected to indicate the correct location of the suit property, that cannot be a ground to defeat the execution of the decree. Under provisions of Section 152 of the Code, power has been conferred on the Court to permit rectification of clerical and typographical errors arising from any accidental slip or omission at any point of time. That the joint family property is located at village Gaul is not in dispute. The parties having contested the suit for partition and description of the property not being made an issue, it would be a travesty of justice to non-suit the plaintiffs on the ground that though the plaint and decree indicate that the suit property is situated at village Gaul, the decree cannot be executed as the property is described to be located at village Shembalpimpri in the judgment. It goes without saying that in the judgment, the relief has to be granted as prayed for in the plaint. As a result of the plaint being corrected to indicate the location of the suit property and the decree also having been so corrected, it follows that the decree is executable on that basis. The judgment can always be corrected in exercise of powers under Section 152 of the Code as held in Tilak Raj [supra]. Hence, I do not find that the impugned order is liable to be interfered on that count. The substantial question of law is answered by holding that the decree in question can be executed by amending the judgment under Section 152 of the Code.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Second Appeal No. 5 of 2016

Decided On: 21.07.2017

 Laxman Ramji Taske and Ors. Vs. Kewalabai Kisan Pawade and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.S. Chandurkar, J.

Citation:2017(6) MHLJ 224

Print Page

Whether court can amend judgments, decrees or orders if mistake is arising out accidental slip or omission of parties?

    I am of the view that there is no reason to

restrict the scope of Section 152 of the Code of CPC to

`accidental slip or omission' of the Court and its

ministerial staff alone. It would be relevant to extract

Section 152 of the CPC:

              "152. Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders:-

       Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders, or

       errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at

       any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on

       the application of any of the parties."

There is nothing to indicate that the applicability of

the Section is confined to cases of slip or omission by

Court.      It     definitely       takes      within    its    compass     the

`accidental slip or omission' of the parties also.

Essentially the question would be whether it was an

instance of `accidental slip or omission'. When the

Court      is    satisfied       that     the    mistake     or    error    was

accidental, powers vested in the Court under Section 152

of the CPC needs to be invoked to correct mistakes in



the decree, especially in a case like the present one,

where parties to the suit do not dispute the fact that

the particulars sought to be corrected, is a mistake. It

would be highly inequitable in such a case, to drive the

parties to a separate litigation seeking the relief of

rectification of the instrument itself. A mistake made

by the parties in a deed upon which the suit is founded

and carried forward into the judgment, decree or order

might      be    or   might not  be    an "accidental slip or

omission". In cases where it is clear that the case is

one of "accidental slip or omission", it is the duty of

the court to correct the decree in tune with the actual

intend of the Court and the parties. It is not necessary

to drive the parties to a separate litigation for

rectification of the deed. Giving such an interpretation

to Section 152 of the CPC would only advance the cause

of justice. Even assuming that Section 152 of the CPC


does not apply, still it could be corrected in exercise

of the inherent power vested under Section 151 of the

CPC. In such matters Courts should not be tied up by the

shackles of technicalities but must strive to do justice

to the parties. In adopting the above approach, I am

fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in Niyamat

Ali Molla V.Sonargon Housing Cooperative Society and

others (2007 (13) SCC 421).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT:

         MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

    17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/

                 OP(C).NO. 1268 OF 2015

       CHANDRAN 

V
           AMRUTHAVALLY,

Print Page

Whether court can make correction in decree U/S 152 of CPC if mistake is on part of litigant?

 The case of the petitioners may be examined on the anvil of the
decisions cited supra. On a bare perusal of Section 152 CPC, it is
evident that clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees
or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or
omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either on its own
motion or on the application of any of the parties. If clerical or
arithmetical mistakes in the judgments, decrees or orders or errors
arising therein from the accidental slip or omission has been
committed by the court, then the court may correct the same on its
own motion or on the application of any of the parties. It does not
comprehend the correction of any error on the part of any of the
litigating parties. The error must be on the part of the court. In an
application under Section 152 CPC, the Court cannot ascertain the
intention of the parties making the compromise and filing the
application. The said section cannot be invoked for the purpose of
explaining as to what was the intention of the parties in arriving at
the compromise. Since the parties have filed a compromise petition
admitting the contents to be correct and thereafter the court has
recorded the same, Section 152 CPC cannot be pressed into service to
correct the compromise petition and decree.” (emphasis laid)
Much emphasis has been laid by Mr.Pattnaik, learned
Advocate for the petitioner, on a decision of this Court in the case of
Santosh Kumar Sahoo (supra), wherein a Bench of this Court held that a
decree can be amended and corrected in exercise of power under
Sections 151 and 152 C.P.C. even if a mistake is committed by the
parties. On a bare perusal of the said judgment, it is evident that the
judgment was rendered on concession. Both parties agreed in that case
for correction of the decree. Accordingly, a direction was issued to the
learned trial court. The question does arise whether the same is a
binding precedent? The answer is empathetically no.5
8. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vrs. Gurnam Kaur, (1989)
1 Supreme Court Cases 101, the apex Court in paragraph-10 of the
report in no uncertain terms held that when a direction or order is made
by consent of the parties, the court does not adjudicate upon the rights
of the parties nor does it lay down any principle. Quotability as ‘law’
applies to the principle of a case, its ratio decidendi. The only thing in a
judge’s decision binding as an authority upon a subsequent judge is the
principle upon which the case was decided. Statements which were not
part of the ratio decidendi are distinguished as obiter dicta and are not
authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.12357 of 2008
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India.

Netrananda Dalai V Ratnabati Nayak (dead) and another 

PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.RATH
Date of Judgment: 16.07.2016

Print Page

Whether decree for divorce by mutual consent can be modified incorporating agreement which was not part of decree as per S 152 of CPC?

Civil Procedure Code, 1908--Section 152--Modification of decree-- Divorce by mutual consent--Agreement between parties--No prayer was made in application--For incorporating the conditions of agreement in decree--Order for allowing the application for rectification/modification of decree--Order set aside.

According to the observations of the Court as quoted above the case of the respondent-husband was that it was due to inadvertence that the terms of the contract were not included in the decree but we find that this was not the case of the respondent- husband in Paragraph 3 of his application for modification of the order. according to which the parties being lay persons without assistance of lawyers had failed to ask for the relief as per the agreement in their prayer clause. Consequently order was silent on those reliefs. No averment of inadvertence by reason of which court may not have included those terms in the decree has been indicated in the application for modification of the decree. It is only an effort to improve upon the case as taken up by the respondent in his application. Again we find that in Para 16 of the order the learned judge of the family court after referring to certain decisions cited by the parties holding some of them to be applicable and others not, held as follows: I have already pointed out in the earlier paragraph of my judgment that both the parties intended to get divorce and agreement to that effect was entered into between the parties which form part of the pleading and both parties initially accepted that it should also form part of the decree (underlined by us to emphasize) It is to be noticed that no such prayer was ever made by the parties that the agreement should form part of the decree. Paragraph 8 of the petition for dissolution of the marriage only averred that the agreement be treated as part and parcel of the petition while passing the order accordingly. We have already adverted to this aspect of the matter in the earlier part of this judgment. The learned judge therefore arrived at the conclusion that it appeared that the predecessor in office has inadvertently forgotten to incorporate the terms and conditions of the agreement in the decree which was an accidental omission. It is against the case as taken up by the respondent in his application vide its Paragraph 3. The unfounded observation of accidental omission on the part of the Court as made by the Family Court seems to have been taken into account by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition and the learned Division Bench deciding the matter in appeal. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the learned judge of the family court intended to incorporate the terms and conditions of the agreement in the decree. It would have been a different case if it was shown that the Court intended to incorporate those terms but accidentally it slipped or the court forgot to do so. But there is no material on the basis of which intention of the family court can be inferred for incorporating the terms and conditions of the agreement in the decree for divorce on the basis of which it can be said that whatever was intended by the court could not be reflected in the decree. There is not even a whisper about the Memo of Agreement dated 26.7.91 in the narration made in the decree dated 7.3.92. The respondents prayer for grant of mandatory injunction, as quoted in the earlier part of this judgment, by way of modification of the decree dated 7.3.1992, has been rightly not granted. The application was thus liable to be rejected instead of incorporating the terms and conditions of the agreement in the decree in respect of which no prayer was made in the application for modification of decree. We may also make a brief mention of one aspect of the matter without meaning to enter into the merits of that question i.e. in regard to the transfer of the flat, which seems to be the bone of contention, on payment of Rs.1,70,000/- by the husband-respondent to the wife. Much has been said about it in the application for modification and in reply thereof. The payment was to be made within four months of entering into the agreement, that is to say, by 26th November, 1991. On such payment being made the wife was to transfer the property in favour of the husband. The decree has been passed on 7.3.1992. Undisputedly the amount has not been paid to the wife. The payment was ever offered or in time, if at all, is a disputed question between the parties which need not be gone into in these proceedings. But it may possibly have some bearing on the question by reason of which the Family Court did not incorporate the terms of the agreement in the decree or for that reason namely payment having not been made the parties may have preferred to keep silent about it before the Family Court on 7.3.1992 while the Court was passing the decree. The main part of the agreement related to divorce by mutual consent as it had become impossible for the couple to live together. This fact alone finds mention in the decree passed by the family court dated 7.3.1992. All that we mean to indicate is that there may be other possible reasons for the family court for not incorporating the terms and conditions of the agreement in the decree, or the reason as indicated by the husband-respondent in Paragraph 3 of his application for modification of the decree itself. In the above background and looking to the prayers made by the respondent-husband for granting mandatory injunction in our view the application for rectification of decree was totally misconceived and was only liable to be dismissed rather to incorporate terms and conditions of the agreement dated 26.7.1991 in respect of which no prayer was made in the application for modification nor in the original petition for dissolution of marriage more particularly when no accidental slip on the part of the Court was indicated in the application nor the same being substantiated. 

Supreme Court of India

Jayalakshmi Coelho vs Oswald Joseph Coelho on 28 February, 2001

Bench: Brijesh Kumar, D.P.Mohapatro

Citation:AIR2001SC1084, 2001(2)ALLMR(SC)229,2001(3)MhLJ498(SC),(2001)4SCC181, 

Print Page

Which mistakes in judgment can be corrected by court under S.152 of CPC?

Section 152 C.P.C. provides for correction of clerical arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. The exercise of this power contemplates the correction of mistakes by the Court of its ministerial actions and does not contemplate of passing effective judicial orders after the judgment, decree or order. The settled position of law is that after the passing of the judgment, decree or order, court or the tribunal becomes functus officio and thus being not entitled to vary the terms of the judgments, decrees and orders earlier passed. The correction contemplated are of correcting only accidental omission or mistakes and not all omissions and mistakes which might have been committed by the Court while passing the judgment, decree or order. The omission sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of Section 152 for which the proper remedy for the aggrieved party is to file appeal or review application. It implies that the Section cannot be pressed into service to correct an omission which is intentional, how erroneous that may be. It has been noticed that the courts below have been liberally construing and applying the province of Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC even after passing of effective order in the Us pending before them. No Court can under the cover of the aforesaid sections modify, alter or add to the terms of its original judgment, decree or order. In the instant case, the trial court had specifically held the respondents-State liable to pay future interest only despite the prayer of the appellant for grant of interest with effect from the date of alleged breach which impliedly meant that the court had rejected the claim of the appellant in so far as pendente lite interest was concerned. The omission in not granting the pendente lite interest could not be held to be accidental omission or mistake as was wrongly done by the trial court vide order dated 30th November, 1973. The High Court was, therefore, justified in setting aside the aforesaid order by accepting the revision petition filed by the State.

Supreme Court of India

Dwaraka Das vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr on 10 February, 1999

Bench: V.N. Khare, R.P. Sethi

Citation; AIR1999 SC1031,1999 (1) SCR 524

Print Page

Which mistake can be corrected by court u/s 152 of CPC?

 Section 152 provides that a clerical or arithmetical mistake in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. The question, therefore, arises is whether omission of pendente lite interest to the decree by the trial Court was an accidental or clerical error. In the case of Dwaraka Das v. State of M.P. & Anr. , it was held that the omission in not granting the pendente lite interest could not be held to be accidental Commission or mistake and therefore, neither the trial Court nor the appellate Court has power to award pendente lite interest under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This decision is squarely applicable to the present case. In the present case, neither the arbitrators nor the trial court awarded pendente lite interest to the decree holder. The executing court also refused to grant pendente lite interest to the decree holder and the same was upheld by the High Court in the revision petition filed against the order of the executing court. However, the position would be different where the judgment of a court provides for pendente lite interest and decree omits to mention such interest. Such a mistake could be corrected under Section 152 CPC. The correct position of law is that a decree cannot add or subtract any relief except what has been provided in the judgment. But this is not the case here. Mr. B. Kanta Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent then relied upon a decision of this Court in Janakiramma Iyer v. Nilakanta Iyer(1962) suppl. (1) SCR 206. In this case, the trial Court awarded mesne profit, however, in the decree it was written as net profit. 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 the case of typographical mistake and, therefore, not applicable to the present case.1


Supreme Court of India

K. Rajamouli vs A.V.K.N. Swamy on 3 May, 2001

Equivalent citations: AIR 2001 SC 2316, 2001 (2) ARBLR 702 SC

Bench: V K Phukan

Print Page

Whether Correction of decree is permissible as per S152 of CPC?

The same Bench again in Pratibha Singh & Ors. v. Shanti Devi Prasad & Anr. [AIR 2003 SC 643] held :

When the suit as to immovable property has been decreed and the property is not definitely identified, the defect in the court record caused by overlooking of provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 3 and Order 20 Rule 3 of the CPC is capable of being cured. After all a successful plaintiff should not be deprived of the fruits of decree. Resort can be had to Section 152 or Section 47 of the CPC depending on the facts and circumstances of each case -- which of the two provisions would be more appropriate, just and convenient to invoke. Being an inadvertent error, not affecting the merits of the case, it may be corrected under Section 152 of the CPC by the Court which passed the decree by supplying the omission.

Alternatively, the exact description of decretal property may be ascertained by the Executing Court as a question relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of decree within the meaning of Section 47 CPC. A decree of a competent Court should not, as far as practicable, be allowed to be defeated on account of an accidental slip or omission. In the facts and circumstances of the present case we think it would be more appropriate to invoke Section 47 of the CPC. 1

Supreme Court of India

Niyamat Ali Molla vs Sonargon Housing Co-Operative ... on 12 October, 2007

Citation;AIR2008SC225, 2008(5)ALT3(SC), 2008 1 AWC(Supp)1069SC, (2008)1CALLT10(SC), 2008(1)CTC161, JT2007(12)SC367, 2008-1-LW106, (2008)1MLJ1268(SC), (2007)13SCC421, [2007]11SCR346

Print Page

Whether Correction of decree is permissible?

Unfortunately, in the schedule to the plaint the suit property has been described, amongst other, as Municipal Holding No. 22 though actually the same should Municipal Holding No. 18. Consequently, the said mistake cropped up in the body of the judgment and in the decree.

21. The said mistake was detected at the stage of delivery of possession of the suit premises from the report of the nazir.

22. The plaintiffs, accordingly, made an application Under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for correction of the schedule to the plaint, the judgment and the decree by correcting the Municipal Holding No. as 18 instead of the Municipal Holding No. 22.

23. After going through the depositions of the witnesses for both the parties and the other materials on record I am of the firm view that it is a case of misdescription of the suit property and not a case of mistaken identity of the same.Schedule to the plaint, the judgment and the decree can be corrected.

Calcutta High Court

Sri Dilip Kr. Chatterjee vs Sri Narayandas Mukherjee And Ors. on 22 April, 1993

Equivalent citations: (1993) 2 CALLT 472 HC; AIR 1994 NOC 89 (Cal)

Bench: N K Bhattacharyya

Print Page

Whether Court can correct award passed in Lok adalat by exercising powers U/S 152 of CPC?

(v)  If   the   learned   District   Judge   finds   that   the  calculations incorporated in  the consent awards are erroneous,  the learned District   Judge   shall   direct   that   the   consent   awards   shall   be corrected by exercising powers under sections 152 and 153 of the Code   of   Civil   Procedure,   1908   by   incorporating   the   correct calculations;   

5. After hearing  the parties,  the

determination of the exact amount payable to the petitioners will have to be made by the Reference Court.  If it is found that the computation of the amount payable incorporated in the consent awards is incorrect, the reference Court will have to exercise powers under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for correction of the awards.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

 CIVIL   APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION  NO. 8891  OF  2012

Tulashiram Nivarutthi Shendage  vs. Taluka Legal Services Authority Malshiras & Ors

CORAM  : A.S. OKA & 

      A.P. BHANGALE, JJ.

DATE      : 23rd  JANUARY,  2013.

Print Page

Whether court can add or subtract any relief granted in judgement U/S 152 of CPC?

 Section 152 provides that a clerical or arithmetical mistake in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. The correct position of law is that a decree cannot add or subtract any relief except what has been provided in the judgment

Supreme Court of India

K. Rajamouli vs A.V.K.N. Swamy on 3 May, 2001

Equivalent citations: AIR 2001 SC 2316, 2001 (2) ARBLR 702 SC

Bench: V K Phukan

Print Page

Whether Power to rectify decree u/s 152 of CPC is given to court to give second thought over the matter?

Power to rectify decree is not a power to give second thought over the matter. Power u/s 152 is confined to something initially intended by court but left out or added against said intention.

Supreme Court of India

Jayalakshmi Coelho vs Oswald Joseph Coelho on 28 February, 2001

Author: 

BRIJESH KUMAR, J.

Print Page