Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 74 (CHH)

Rukhmani Nirmalkar v. Satyaprakash Sharma

2014-02-19

SANJAY K.AGRAWAL

body2014
ORDER Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Heard on admission. These civil revisions (Civil Revision Nos. 09/2014, 10/2014 & 11/2014) were heard together and disposed of by this common order, as common question of fact & law are involved. 2. These civil revisions are filed against the order dated 27th of November, 2013 passed by 6th Civil Judge, Class-I, Raipur, rejecting the application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') filed by the plaintiff/decree holder stating inter alia that there is typographical/clerical error in Para-19(b) of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, plaintiff/decree holder is entitled interest @ 18% per annum, whereas, the operative portion records that the plaintiff is entitled interest @ 1.5% per annum. 3. The trial Court, which had passed the decree heard the application and after considering the same, clearly recorded a finding that the issue No. 3 has been answered and relief in part has been granted to the plaintiff, therefore, no typographical/clerical error in the operative portion of the judgment and decree. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the papers available with the memo of civil revisions. 5. In order to decide these civil revisions, it will be useful to take note of Section 152 of CPC, which reads as under:-- 152. Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders.--Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, 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. 6. Section 152 of CPC provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. The exercise of this power contemplates the correction of mistakes by the Court of its ministerial actions and does not contemplate of passing effective judicial orders after the judgment, decree or order. 6. Section 152 of CPC provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. The exercise of this power contemplates the correction of mistakes by the Court of its ministerial actions and does not contemplate of passing effective judicial orders after the judgment, decree or order. The settled position of law is that after the passing of the judgment, decree or order, the same becomes final subject to any further avenues of remedies provided in respect of the same and the very Court or the tribunal cannot, on mere change of view, is not entitled to vary the terms of the judgments, decrees and orders earlier passed except by means of review, if statutorily provided specifically therefor and subject to the conditions or limitations provided therein. 7. In case of State of Punjab Vs. Darshan Singh AIR 2003 SC 4179 , the Supreme Court held as under: 11.......The powers under Section 152 of the Code are neither to be equated with the power of review nor can be said to be akin to review or even said to clothe the Court concerned under the guise of invoking after the result of the judgment earlier rendered, in its entirety or any portion or part of it. The corrections contemplated are of correcting only accidental omissions or mistakes and not all omissions and mistakes which might have been committed by the Court while passing the judgment, decree or order. The omission sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of Section 152 as if it is looking into it for the first time, for which the proper remedy for the aggrieved party if at all is to file appeal or revision before the higher forum or review application before the very forum, subject to the limitations in respect of such review. It implies that the Section cannot be pressed into service to correct an omission which is intentional, however erroneous that may be. It has been noticed that the Courts below have been liberally construing and applying the provisions of Sections 151 and 152 of Code even after passing of effective orders in the lis pending before them. It implies that the Section cannot be pressed into service to correct an omission which is intentional, however erroneous that may be. It has been noticed that the Courts below have been liberally construing and applying the provisions of Sections 151 and 152 of Code even after passing of effective orders in the lis pending before them. No Court can, under the cover of the aforesaid Sections, modify, alter or add to the terms of its original judgment, decree or order. Similar view was expressed by this Court in Dwaraka Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. ( 1999(3) SCC 500 ) and Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho ( 2001(4) SCC 181 ). 12. The basis of the provision under Section 152 of the Code is founded on the maxim 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' i.e. an act of Court shall prejudice no man. The maxim "is founded upon justice and good sense, and affords a safe and certain guide for the administration of the law", said Cresswell J. in Freeman v. Tranah (12 C.B. 406). An unintentional mistake of the Court which may prejudice the cause of any party must and alone could be rectified. In Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa ( AIR 1966 SC 1047 ) it was observed that the arithmetical mistake is a mistake of calculation, a clerical mistake is a mistake in writing or typing whereas an error arising out of or occurring from accidental slip or omission is an error due to careless mistake on the part of the Court liable to be corrected. To illustrate this point it was said that in a case where the order contains something which is not mentioned in the decree, it would be a case of unintentional omission or mistake as the mistake or omission is attributable to the Court which may say something or omit to say something which it did not intend to say or omit. No new arguments or re-arguments on merits can be entertained to facilitate such rectification of mistakes. The provision cannot be invoked to modify, alter or add to the terms of the original order or decree so as to, in effect, pass an effective judicial order after the judgment in the case. 8. No new arguments or re-arguments on merits can be entertained to facilitate such rectification of mistakes. The provision cannot be invoked to modify, alter or add to the terms of the original order or decree so as to, in effect, pass an effective judicial order after the judgment in the case. 8. Keeping in view the law laid down in case of State of Punjab AIR 2003 SC 4179 (supra), the provision cannot be invoked to modify, alter or add to the terms of the original order or decree so as to, in effect, pass an effective judicial order after the judgment in the case. After hearing the application, the trial Court has clearly recorded a finding that the plaintiff/decree holder is entitled interest @ 1.5% per annum and issue No. 3 has partly been answered in favour of the plaintiff and there is no clerical or arithmetical mistake in the judgment and decree, therefore, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the order passed on 27th of November, 2013 by the trial Court. Resultantly, all civil revisions deserves to and accordingly dismissed.