Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, landlords and decree holders, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 12th July 2019 passed by the learned District Judge-1, Nashik, rejecting their Civil Miscellaneous Application No.184/2018 seeking correction of the decree. The suit property was a portion of house no. 434 at Nashik, initially let out to the respondent-tenant. The landlords sought eviction on the ground of bonafide and reasonable need, alleging that the tenant had encroached upon additional area beyond the let-out premises. The trial court and appellate court upheld the landlords' bonafide need and found that the property let out was 20 x 20 square feet (approximately 37.16 sq. m.), not 15 sq. m. as mentioned in the plaint. The tenant's civil revision and special leave petition were dismissed. However, the decree prepared by the trial court mentioned the area as 15 sq. m., which was inconsistent with the findings in the judgment. The landlords filed an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for correction of the decree, which was rejected by the trial court. The High Court held that the decree must conform to the judgment and that the executing court cannot go behind the decree. The court observed that the trial court had erred in rejecting the application without considering the settled legal position. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to correct the decree by substituting the area of the suit property as 20 x 20 sq. ft. (or equivalent in sq. m.) as per the judgment. The court also directed that the correction be carried out within four weeks from the date of the order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Correction of Decree - Section 152 CPC - Clerical or Arithmetical Mistakes - The court held that the decree must conform to the judgment and that the executing court cannot go behind the decree. The petitioners sought correction of the decree to reflect the actual area of the suit property as 20 x 20 sq. ft. instead of 15 sq. m., as found by the trial and appellate courts. The High Court allowed the petition, directing the trial court to correct the decree under Section 152 CPC. (Paras 1-10) B) Rent Control - Eviction Decree - Bonafide Need - The landlords' bonafide need for the suit property was upheld by the trial court, appellate court, and the Supreme Court. The tenant's encroachment beyond the let-out area was also established. The decree for possession was confirmed. (Paras 3-5) C) Constitutional Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to correct an error in the decree that was apparent on the face of the record, as the trial court had rejected the application for correction without considering the settled legal position. (Paras 1, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the decree passed in an eviction suit should be corrected to reflect the actual area of the suit property as found by the courts below, and whether the executing court can go behind the decree.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order dated 12th July 2019, and directed the trial court to correct the decree under Section 152 CPC by substituting the area of the suit property as 20 x 20 sq. ft. (or equivalent in sq. m.) as per the judgment. The correction to be carried out within four weeks from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Correction of decree under Section 152 CPC
- Decree must conform to judgment
- Inherent power to correct clerical errors
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
