Judicial Power – Clerical or Accidental Errors – Distinction Between Review and Amendment – Execution of Decrees – Correction of Judgment to Reflect True Intent

a. Power under Section 152 CPC is limited to clerical or accidental slips and does not extend to reconsidering the merits of the judgment.
b. Correction of a misdescription in a decree to align with the findings in the judgment is permissible.
c. A decree should reflect the actual intent of the judgment, and courts have an inherent duty to correct mistakes that would otherwise prevent proper execution.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the District Judge’s order. The Court held that the correction did not alter the merits of the case but merely rectified an accidental omission. Section 152 CPC allows correction of clerical or accidental mistakes, even post-decree, without altering substantive rights.

Major Acts Discussed:

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 152 – Amendment of judgments, decrees, or orders in case of clerical or arithmetical errors or accidental slips.
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 151 – Inherent powers of the court to prevent miscarriage of justice.
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 47 – Execution of decrees, power of executing court to ascertain details in decree enforcement.

Subjects:

Amendment of Judgment – Accidental Slip – Clerical Error – Misdescription of Property – Execution of Decree – Inherent Powers – Review v. Amendment – Writ Jurisdiction – Adverse Possession – Title Dispute

Facts:

a. Nature of the Litigation: The dispute arose from a correction in the judgment and decree regarding possession of land, claimed by the plaintiff. The defendant challenged the correction under writ jurisdiction.

b. Who Approached the Court and for What Remedy: The petitioner (defendant) sought to quash the amendment order passed by the District Judge under Section 152 of the CPC, arguing that the correction amounted to a substantive modification, which was beyond the scope of Section 152.

c. Reason for Filing the Case: The petitioner contended that the decree originally granted possession of entire Block Nos. 593 and 535, while the suit was only for possession of half of Block No. 535. The correction, therefore, allegedly exceeded the court's jurisdiction.

d. Previous Decisions:

• The Trial Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, recognizing the defendant's claim of adverse possession.
• The First Appellate Court reversed the decision, granting possession to the plaintiff.
• The Second Appeal was dismissed by the High Court, affirming the Appellate Court’s decree.
• Execution proceedings were filed, and the petitioner raised objections regarding the executability of the decree due to misdescription of property.
• The District Judge, under Section 152 CPC, amended the decree to specify possession of the entire Block No. 593 and only ½ share of Block No. 535.

Issues:

a. Whether the District Judge had the power under Section 152 CPC to amend the decree in the manner done.
b. Whether the correction was merely a clerical or accidental slip or amounted to a substantial modification of the decree.
c. Whether the correction was necessary to reflect the true intent of the First Appellate Court’s judgment.

Submissions/Arguments:

• Petitioner’s Contention (Defendant):

  • The amendment changed the scope of the decree beyond a mere clerical error.
  • The description of the property in the original decree was correct as per the plaint.
  • Section 152 CPC cannot be used to alter a decree on merits.

• Respondent’s Contention (Plaintiff):

  • The correction was necessary to reflect the intent of the Appellate Court.
  • The defendant had no title in Block No. 593, and the appellate judgment recognized the plaintiff’s ownership.
  • The decree, if left uncorrected, would be unenforceable and unjust.