Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, original defendant, challenged an order dated 26 October 2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Barshi, allowing an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to amend the judgment and decree in Regular Civil Appeal No.204 of 1986. The background facts are that the respondent (plaintiff) had instituted a suit for recovery of possession of properties bearing Block Nos.593 and 535 situated at Javalgaon, Vairag, Taluka Barshi, described in the plaint as '1/2 share' of each block. The trial court dismissed the suit on 30 January 1986, holding that the defendant had perfected title by adverse possession. On appeal, the District Judge allowed the appeal on 25 September 1990 and directed the defendant to deliver possession of 'the lands bearing Block Nos.593 and 535' without the qualification of ½ share. The defendant's second appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 7 February 1991. In execution proceedings, the defendant contended that the decree was for the entire blocks, whereas the suit was only for ½ share, making the decree a nullity. The executing court disposed of the proceedings on 14 September 2015, effectively holding the decree unexecutable. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 read with Section 152 CPC to amend the judgment and decree, seeking to correct the area of Block No.593 to 1H 05Are and to restrict the decree to ½ portion of Block No.535. The District Judge allowed the application, observing that the mistake was an accidental error and that the judgment read as a whole showed an intention to decree only ½ share of Block No.535. The defendant then filed the present writ petition. The High Court examined the scope of Section 152 CPC, relying on State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh (2004) 1 SCC 328, and held that the power under Section 152 is limited to correcting clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors from accidental slip or omission, and cannot be used to alter the relief granted on merits. The court found that the amendment sought was not a mere correction but a substantive change in the relief, as the original decree granted possession of the entire blocks, while the amendment sought to restrict it to ½ share of Block No.535 and a specific area of Block No.593. Such a change required a review or appeal, not a correction under Section 152. The High Court also noted that the executing court had already held the decree to be a nullity, and the amendment could not cure that defect. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and dismissed the application for amendment.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Judgment and Decree - Section 152 CPC - Scope of Correction - The court held that Section 152 CPC permits only correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slip or omission, and does not allow alteration of the relief granted on merits. The correction sought must be apparent from the record and not require a fresh adjudication. (Paras 10-12) B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Decree - Accidental Slip vs. Substantive Change - The District Court's amendment changed the decree from delivery of possession of entire Block Nos.593 and 535 to delivery of 1H 05R of Block No.593 and ½ share of Block No.535, which was a substantive alteration of the relief granted in the original judgment. Such a change goes beyond the scope of Section 152 and amounts to a review without authority. (Paras 13-16) C) Civil Procedure - Execution of Decree - Nullity - The original decree for entire Block Nos.593 and 535 was inconsistent with the plaint prayer for ½ share, rendering it unexecutable. The executing court had rightly held the decree to be a nullity. The amendment under Section 152 could not cure this fundamental defect. (Paras 3.4-3.5, 16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the District Court could amend the judgment and decree by invoking the power under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to correct an alleged accidental slip regarding the description of property in the decree.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 26 October 2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Barshi, and dismissed the application filed by the respondent under Section 151 read with Section 152 CPC for amendment of the judgment and decree.
Law Points
- Section 152 CPC permits only correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors from accidental slip or omission
- not alteration of relief on merits
- Amendment of decree cannot add or subtract from relief granted
- Power under Section 152 is not akin to review
- Court cannot vary terms of judgment after finality except through review
