Skip to content


Chhala Banchhor Vs. Rajan Banchhor and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revision No. 630/1980
Judge
Reported in1984(II)OLR650
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 152 - Order 20, Rules 3 and 6
AppellantChhala Banchhor
RespondentRajan Banchhor and ors.
Appellant AdvocateL. Mohapatra
Respondent AdvocateS. Misra-1, S.K. Nayak-2, G.P. Mohapatra, Rakhi Saha and B.B. Panda for the Opposite parties Nos. 1, 3 and 4
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....they replace statutory rules. - applying the aforesaid test to the facts of the present case there can be no manner of doubt that the omission complained of was neither an accidental slip nor an omission. since the trial court particularly applied its mind regarding the correctness of the description of the suit property given in the plaint and negativing the objection of the defendants accepted the description given in the plaint and the court never felt any necessity to make the map attached to the plaint a part of the decree, the omission complained of by the petitioner cannot be said to be one arising out of an accidental slip......suit be decreed on contest against the defendants with costs. the title of the plaintiff to the suit property is hereby declared and the defendants are directed to make over possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within 15 days hence, in default, the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover possession of the same through court- by levying execution against the defendants.'the decree was drawn up in accordance with the direction in the judgment quoted above.the petitioner filed an application praying that the decree be amended to make the map attached to the plaint a part of it and necessary correction be made to that effect in the certified copy of the decree. to the said application, opposite party no. 1 filed his objection stating inter alia that the correctness of the map.....
Judgment:

D.P. Mohapatra, J.

1. The short question involved in this case is whether the amendment of the judgment and decree sought for by the petitioner comes within the scope of Section 152, C. P. C. The Court below having rejected the petitioner's application under Section 152, C. P. C, the revision petition has been filed impugning the said order.

The petitioner filed Title Suit No. 65 of 1975 in the Court of the Munsif, Bargarh, for declaration of title over plaint 'A' Schedule land and for recovery of possession of the same. The suit was decreed by the Court by its judgment dated 21st of August, 1979. The ordering portion of the judgment reads as follows :

'That the suit be decreed on contest against the defendants with costs. The title of the plaintiff to the suit property is hereby declared and the defendants are directed to make over possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within 15 days hence, in default, the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover possession of the same through Court- by levying execution against the defendants.'

The decree was drawn up in accordance with the direction in the judgment quoted above.

The petitioner filed an application praying that the decree be amended to make the map attached to the plaint a part of it and necessary correction be made to that effect in the certified copy of the decree. To the said application, opposite party No. 1 filed his objection stating inter alia that the correctness of the map attached to the plaint was not accepted by the defendants. In spite of the said objection no step was taken by the petitioner (plaintiff) to prove the map and to establish its correctness. As such, the map could not be treated as a part of the decree.

The trial Court on a consideration of the application and the objection thereto, rejected the prayer holding that the amendment sought was neither a clerical nor arithmetical mistake and hence, did not come within the purview of Section 152, C. P. C.

2. Order 22, Rule 3, C. P .C, provides that a judgment, once signed, shall not afterwards be altered or added to same as provided by Section 152, C. P. C, or on review. Under Order 22, Rule 6, C. P. C, the decree is to be drawn up so as to agree with the judgment. From these provisions it is clear that, as a general rule, a judgment, decree or final orders, once drawn up and signed, cannot subsequently be altered, verified or amended in any manner by the Court which pronounced it even with the consent of the parties, except in the manner indicated above.

3. Section 152, C. P. C, reads as follows:

'Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgment, decree or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may, at any time, be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties.'

It is clear from the provision that it does not apply where there is no question of clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slips and omissions. The test to determine whether the slip or omission is accidental or not is to see whether the order as it stands, represents the intention of the Judge at the time he made it, and if it does, then, a mistake in it cannot be treated as an accidental slip or omission. The minimum requirement to determine this question would be the presence of some evidence or indication in the judgment that the Court had originally intended to provide or grant that which has been omitted.

Applying the aforesaid test to the facts of the present case there can be no manner of doubt that the omission complained of was neither an accidental slip nor an omission. There is no controversy that the omission is neither a clerical or arithmetical mistake. The trial Court framed a specific issue,, Issue No. 4, to the following effect :

'4. If the description of the suit property is correct ?'

Discussing the said issue, the Court observed that the suit property as described in the plaint does not suffer from and vague and incorrect description and as such, the issue was answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The judgment of the trial Court no where mentions about the map attached to the plaint and the necessity of treating the said map as a part of the decree. Since the trial Court particularly applied its mind regarding the correctness of the description of the suit property given in the plaint and negativing the objection of the defendants accepted the description given in the plaint and the Court never felt any necessity to make the map attached to the plaint a part of the decree, the omission complained of by the petitioner cannot be said to be one arising out of an accidental slip. There is no controversy between the parties that the description of the properties given in the schedule to the decree tallies with that of schedule 'A' of the plaint. In these circumstances, the Court below has rightly rejected the application of correction of the decree.

4. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the revision is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case without cost of this proceeding.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //