Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1946 (MAD)

Subramaniya Pillai v. Kamalakannan

2021-07-30

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

body2021
ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the 2nd and 7th defendants in O.S.No.303 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tindivanam, questioning the order dated 25.09.2020 in I.A.No.728 of 2017. 2. The suit in O.S.No.303 of 1996 had been filed by the 1st respondent seeking declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and also for costs. 3. In the schedule it had been stated that the property is situated in Avarapakkam Sub-Registration District, Melperadikuppam Village. 4. The plaint was amended by order of the Court in I.A.No.1155 of 2014 and in the amended plaint, the description of property was stated to be situated in Avarapakkam Sub-Registration District, Melkpakkam Village. 5. The suit proceeded and on 31.01.2017, the suit was decreed. Thereafter, the 2nd and 7th defendants who are the revision petitioners herein filed A.S.No.24 of 2017 which is now pending on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tindivanam. 6. At that stage, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.728 of 2017 under Section 152 of CPC seeking to amend the decree by deleting Avarapakkam Sub-Registration and adding Vallam Sub-Registration District in the plaint as initially filed. It was also sought that in the amended plaint, in the description of the property, Avarapakkam Sub-Registration district and Melkpakkam Village may be deleted and Vallam Sub-Registration District and Melperadikuppam village must be added. In the decree, it was sought that Avarapakkam Sub-Registration, Melkpakkam Village must be deleted and Vallam Sub-Registration District and Melperadikuppam Village must be added. 7. A counter was filed on behalf of the revision petitioners that the said amendment should not be permitted and that A.S.No.24 of 2017 is now pending. 8. However, by order dated 25.09.2020, the Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam, had observed that it was only typographical error which is sought to be rectified and the identity of the property is not in doubt and it is only the Sub-Registration district which has to be actually changed and also the correct name of the village had been given in the plaint as originally instituted, but was wrongly given in the amended plaint and that the amendment would not go to the root of the case and can be permitted under Section 152 of CPC and therefore, allowed the application. Questioning such order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 9. Heard arguments advanced by Mr.G.Pugazhenthi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner / defendants 2 and 7 and Ms.C.Jayachitra, learned counsel for the 1st respondent / plaintiff. 10. It is contention of Mr.G.Pugazhenthi, that the amendment goes to the root of the issue and cannot be corrected since Section 152 of CPC is quite narrow in its scope. The learned counsel in this regard placed reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in (2009) 3 LW 486 (Mad), Alamelu V. Kunjalam. The learned Single Judge, in that case had placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2004 (1) LW 618 (SC), State of Punjab V. Darshan Singh. 11. It is the contention of Ms.C.Jayachitra, learned counsel for the 1st respondent / plaintiff, that is only a typographical error with respect to primarily the Sub-Registration District where the properties were situated and restoration of the correct name of the village and stated that they are genuine clerical mistakes and do not change the character of the suit and do not change the nature of the property and do not change the identity of the property. The learned counsel therefore stated that the principles as laid down for invocation of Section 152 of CPC in 2004 (1) LW 618 (SC), State of Punjab V. Darshan Singh, are satisfied and that no prejudice would be caused to the revision petitioners by permitting amendment as sought in I.A.No.728 of 2017. 12. The suit in O.S.No.303 of 1996 had proceeded in its own slow way and finally a judgment had been delivered on 31.01.2017 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam. 13. The suit had been filed for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. In the plaint, as originally presented in the schedule, the property was said to have been situated in Avarapakkam Sub-Registration, Melperadikuppam Village. As a fact the properties were actually situated in Melperadikuppam Village, however, the Sub-Registration District is not Avarapakkam, but Vallam Sub-Registration District. Subsequently, the plaint was amended. 14. In the amended plaint, the properties were described as situated in Avarapakkam Sub-Registration and the name of the village was inadvertently given as Melkpakkam Village. There was no change in the survey numbers, no change in the boundaries and no change in the extent of property. Subsequently, the plaint was amended. 14. In the amended plaint, the properties were described as situated in Avarapakkam Sub-Registration and the name of the village was inadvertently given as Melkpakkam Village. There was no change in the survey numbers, no change in the boundaries and no change in the extent of property. In the decree which was passed the description as given in the amended plaint stating that the properties were situated in Avarapakkam Sub-Registration and Melkpakkam Village was incorporated. By way of this amendment, the plaintiff seeks to correct the clerical error in the amended plaint namely, Melperadikuppam Village, as was actually given in the plaint as originally instituted had been given as Melkpakkam Village. The Sub-Registration District had been continuously given wrongly and it was sought to be corrected as Vallam Sub-Registration District. 15. Section 152 of CPC is as follows: “152.Amendment of judgments, decrees and 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.” 16. In 2004 (1) LW 618 (SC), State of Punjab V. Darshan Singh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had stated as follows:- “12. Section 152 provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decree 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 therefore and subject to the conditions or limitations provided therein. The powers under Section 152 of the CPC 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 or mistakes which might have been committed by the Court while passing the judgment, decree or order. .........” 17. It is thus seen that by the amendment sought by the plaintiff there is no change as stated above in the identity of the property, in the area of the property, in the survey numbers of the property or in the boundaries of the property. 18. The judgment referred by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner reported in (2009) 3 LW 486 (Mad), Alamelu V. Kunjalam, an amendment was sought to correct the four boundaries that amendment, the learned Single Judge stated was not permissible. 19. Here the properties remain static. It is only the name of the village which had been incorrectly given, which is now being restored. The Sub-Registration district is a matter of record of the Revenue Department. That had been wrongly given. The amendments will certainly not affect any of the findings given in the Trial Court or the nature of the property. 20. I hold that no prejudice would be caused to the revision petitioner by way of the amendment. The order in I.A.No.728 of 2017 dated 25.09.2020 need not be interfered with. 21. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.