Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Parashuram, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30.08.2016 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, in O.S.No.190/1997, rejecting his application for correction of the judgment and decree dated 09.07.1999. The petitioner had originally filed the suit for declaration and injunction claiming ownership and possession of land bearing Sy.No.104/C measuring 28 guntas at Brahampur, Jewargi Road, Gulbarga, alleging that the respondents (State of Karnataka and its officers) had taken over the land for road construction without compensation. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff on 09.07.1999, declaring his title and granting injunction. The decree became final as no appeal was filed. After about 17 years, in 2016, the petitioner filed an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to correct the survey number in the judgment and decree from Sy.No.104/C to Sy.No.104/D, claiming that the mention of Sy.No.104/C was a typographical error. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the correction sought was not a clerical mistake but would change the subject matter of the suit, and that the application was barred by res judicata. The High Court upheld the trial court's order, noting that the petitioner had not raised any issue regarding the survey number during the trial or in appeal, and the decree had attained finality. The court observed that the correction sought would alter the very identity of the property, which was not permissible under Section 152 CPC. The petition was dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Correction of Decree - Section 152 CPC - Clerical Mistake - The plaintiff sought correction of the judgment and decree to change the survey number from Sy.No.104/C to Sy.No.104/D, claiming a typographical error. The trial court rejected the application. The High Court held that the correction sought was not a mere clerical error but would alter the subject matter of the suit, which had been finally adjudicated. The application was barred by res judicata and the principle of finality of judgments. (Paras 1-6) B) Civil Procedure - Res Judicata - Finality of Decree - Section 11 CPC - The plaintiff's suit for declaration and injunction regarding Sy.No.104/C was decreed in his favor. After the decree became final, he sought to amend the survey number to Sy.No.104/D. The High Court held that the issue of the correct survey number was not raised earlier and could not be reopened after the decree attained finality. The application was an abuse of process. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for correction of the judgment and decree under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to change the survey number from Sy.No.104/C to Sy.No.104/D, after the decree had become final.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition with costs of Rs.5,000, upholding the trial court's order rejecting the application for correction.
Law Points
- Correction of decree under Section 152 CPC limited to clerical or arithmetical mistakes
- cannot be used to alter substantive rights
- res judicata applies to issues finally decided
- amendment after final decree not permissible to change survey number.
