1. This is a petition to revise the order of the learned District Munsif, Gudivada in I.A.No.255 of 1960 in O.S.No.217 of 1957. The petitioner prayed for amendment of the plaint and decree by noting the sum of Rs. 148-8-0 as interest due, instead of Rs. 37-2-0 noted in the plaint and the decree. The petitioner's case was that by mistake the wrong sum of Rs. 37-2-0 was noted for Rs. 148-8-0. This application was resisted by the judgment-debtor, and the objection was upheld by the trial Court, and the petition was dismissed. Hence the revision.
2. The suit was filed on the foot of a mortgage deed dated 31-8-1945 for the principal sum of Rs. 200/-. In the plaint, paragraph 7, the particulars of the claim were stated thus:
Principal amount of the mortgage deed dated 31-8-1945.
Rs. 200-0-0Interest at the rate of Rs. 0-8-3 per hundred permensem from 31-8-45 to 30-8-57.37-2-0
3. In paragraph 10, dealing with the prayer, it was prayed that a preliminary decree may be passed for the suit amount with subsequent interest at the rate of Rs. 0-7-4 from the date of plaint till realisation with costs of suit. During the trial, the defendants appeared and admitted the claim and a decree was passed on 27-3-1958. Subsequently, the decree-holder seems to have discovered that she committed a mistake in the calculation of the interest and filed this application
4. The contentions raised in the lower Court were that neither Section 151 nor Section 152 C.P.C. governs the petition and that (i) under Section 152, an amendment of the decree could only he allowed if there was a clerical mistake in the drafting of decree and not if it is not in accordance with the operative portion of the Judgment and (ii) that Section 151 C.P.C. did not contemplate the amendment of a decree when, in the plaint, a specific mm wan claimed towards interest though out of mistake.
5. It is now well settled that the power under Section 152 C.P.C. is not confined only to correct the mistakes in the drafting of the decree. It has been held to apply even to correct the mistakes or errors committed in the plaint, and even in a document on the foot of which the suit was filed. If authority is needed, reference may be made to T.V. Ranga Rao Naidu v. Balaksonlal Janaki Prasad, AIR 1941 Mad 940 (1) and Satyanarayana Rao v. Purnayya, AIR 1931 Mad 260. The view held by the Allahabad and other High Courts that Section 152 does not deal with mistake of parties has not been subscribed for by the Madras High Court and this Court.
6. In Venkayya v. Satyanarayana, : AIR1959AP360 a Bench of this Court had ruled that a mistake committed by the plaintiffs in entering the acreage or the survey numbers due to inadvertence could be corrected under Section 152. The learned Judges held that as a mistake in that behalf crept into the plaint schedule, the same mistake necessarily entered into the judgment and decree, and that it is an accidental slip and a clerical mistake capable of being rectified under Section 152, and there is nothing which limits the power of the Court under Section 152 to correct such errors and mistakes which arise in the suit.
7. The argument of Sri Y. G. Krishnamurthi, the learned counsel for the respondents is as follows: He says that the interest claimed in the plaint viz., Rs. 37-2-0 exactly amounts to interest for three years and therefore the plaintiff must he deemed to have waived interest for the subsequent period. At any rate, the learned counsel argues that there must be evidence that a mistake was committed by the parties before the amendment can be allowed, and therefore the petition should be remanded for fresh hearing and disposal. I am unable to accede to either of these contentions. The paragraph in the plaint already extracted establishes, that interest was claimed on Rs. 200 at Rs. 0-8-3 per hundred per mensem from 31-8-45 to 30-8-57. Having given those particulars, the figure noted against that entry is Rs. 37-2-0 which ex facie is a mistake. No evidence need be adduced on that point, Further, the other argument that the plaintiff must be deemed to have waived or given up the balance of the interest is also not sustainable, because nowhere in the plaint has it been stated that any portion of the amount due under the mortgage was given up by the plaintiff. In these circumstances, it must be held that the plaintiff committed an obvious arithmetical mistake in noting Rs. 37-2-0 as the interest due when in fact it is Rs. 148-8-0.
8. Section 152 C. P. C. is in the following terms:
'Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time he corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties.'
It is manifest from this section that a clerical or arithmetical mistake creaping into a judgment or decree on account or an accidental slip or omission may be corrected at any time by the Court of its own motion even without an application. The mistake committed in the plaint in the calculation of the amount of interest has also crept into the judgment and the decree and therefore, they can and must be corrected under Section 152. In this case, there is no question of any limitation because the application was filed within three years from the date of the decree. Further, under Section 152, the Court may, at any time, correct the mistake. For these reasons, I cannot agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents that the error in question is not a clerical or arithmetical mistake, or it cannot be corrected.
9. I am also unable to agree with his argument that the matter should go back to the trial Court for an enquiry. On the facts of this case, no further enquiry is necessary, and in fact, no evidence need be adduced about the mistake committed when it is so obvious and patent. The learned District Munsif dismissed the application on account of the erroneous view of Section 152 and Section 151 C. P. C. which is not sustainable as already stated.
For these reasons, the order of the Court below is unsustainable and is hereby set aside. Therevision is allowed, and I. A. No. 255/60 isordered and the amendment will be carried outas prayed for in that application. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order asto costs here as well as in the Court below.