1. This application has been filed under S. 152 of the Civil P. C. stating that in the decree-sheet dated May 3, 1968, prepared by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, in Clause 'm' words Killa No. 3 Min./6-4 and Rectangle No. 27 have not been incorporated through oversight. The applicant has, therefore, prayed that the decree-sheet be corrected accordingly so that it agrees with the judgment of the Court. The application has been opposed by the respondents an the ground that it is not within limitation.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in Clause 'm' in the heading of the decree-sheet after the words Mustateel No. 26, the words 'Kil1a 3 Min./6-4 and Mustateel No. 27' have not been mentioned through an oversight. He submits that under S. 152 of the Civil P. C., this Court has inherent powers to rectify clerical mistakes at any time. He requests that the mistake be ordered to be rectified. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, has vehemently argued that Art. 137 of the Limitation Act which prescribes a period of three years, is applicable to the present case. He further submits that as the application for amendment has been filed after three years consequently it is barred by limitation.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It cannot be disputed that preparation of the decree is the duty of the Court. Section 152 of the Code prescribes that clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgment, decrees 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. Words used in this section are 'at any time', which show that the power of the Court to rectify clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the judgments or decree-sheets is not controlled by tune factor. No doubt, it is true, that Art. 137 prescribes a period of three years for making application under any enactment but period of limitation prescribed by it will not apply to the applications under Section 152 of the Code. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act says that where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of S. 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in Ss. 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. From the aforesaid section, it is evident that where, any special law prescribes limitation that will be deemed to be substituted in the Schedule to the Limitation Act. If S. 152 of the Code is read along with S. 29(2) of the Limitation Act, it would be clear that the words 'at any time' would be deemed to have been substituted in place of the period prescribed in the Article. Therefore, in my view, an application can be filed for rectifying any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments and decrees at any time. In the aforesaid view, I am fortified by the observations of Shyamal Bihari v. Girish Narain, AIR 1962 Pat 116 wherein it has been observed that S. 152 permits clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders to be corrected at any time. The phrase 'at any time' used in S. 152 indicates that the power of the Court to amend its decree under this section is uncontrolled by any time factor, but only by the scope of the section within which it functions. It is further held that there is no limitation for an application to amend the decree. The decree may be amended under this section at any time although the time for appealing from the decree has expired.
4. Mr. Puran Chand, learned counsel for the respondents, has referred to Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum v. T. P. Kunhaliumma, AIR 1977 SC 282 and R. C. Abrol & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. A. R. Chadha & Co., 80 Pun LR (D) 190: (AIR 1978 Delhi 167) (FB). It may he sufficient to observe that the facts of the aforesaid cases are different and the observations made therein shall not be applicable to the present case.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, I accept the petition and direct that the amendment may be made in the decree-sheet. No order as to costs.
6. Order accordingly.