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

Basic concepts of CPC-S 148 to S 153B of CPC

S 148 of CPC-Enlargement of time

It lays down that where any period is fixed or granted by court for doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this code,the court may in its discretion, from time to time enlarge such period but not exceeding 30 days in total even though period originally fixed or granted may have expired.

S 148 A of CPC Right to lodge caveat

Caveat is a caution or warning given by a party to the court, calling upon it not to give any relief to another party, without notice or intimation to the party lodging the caveat. It remains in force within ninety days of lodging.Caveat can be filed in all proceedings including appeal .Stranger to proceeding can not file caveat.

Read important judgments on caveat:
Click here

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

When correction of error in judgment/decree arising from “accidental slip or omission” is permissible?

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 152 and Or. 20 R. 18(2): Correction of error in judgment/decree arising from “accidental slip or omission” is permissible when error should be apparent on face of record and should not depend on discovery thereof by going into merits of the case. In order to determine whether court while carrying out amendment/correction acted within scope of powers under S. 152, pleading of parties, contents of decree and corrections made, have to be examined.

Supreme Court of India

Srihari (Dead) Through Lr. Smt. ... vs Syed Maqdoom Shah & Ors on 16 September, 2014

Bench: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, Prafulla Chandra Pant

   Citation;(2015)1 scc607

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 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