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