Holding

Section 152 CPC empowers the court to correct accidental slips or omissions in a decree, and such amendment is permissible; the application for impleadment is not maintainable.

Summary

The respondent (Sonargon Housing Co‑operative Society Ltd.) obtained a decree for declaration and possession of a property, which was affirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court. The respondent later applied to amend the plaint and the decree to correct blanks and misdescriptions in the schedule of the property. The appellant (Niyamat Ali Molla) objected, arguing that the amendment would amount to a substitution of property and cause prejudice. The Supreme Court held that Section 152 of the CPC permits the court to correct accidental slips or omissions in its own decree, and such correction does not mislead the parties nor substitute the property, provided no prejudice is caused. The Court also ruled that an application for impleadment by a person who was not a party to the original suit is not maintainable. Consequently, the appeal and the impleadment application were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether an amendment of a decree or plaint under Section 152 (or Section 151) CPC is permissible to correct a misdescription of property without prejudice.
Scope of the inherent power of a court under Section 152 CPC – does it extend to correcting mistakes made by the parties.
Whether the amendment would amount to substitution of the decretal property.
Whether an application for impleadment is maintainable by a person who is not a party to the original suit.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 151, s. 152, s. Order 21 Rules 97, s. Order 21 Rules 99

Subjects

amendment of decreeSection 152 CPCinherent power of courtmisdescription of propertyimpleadmentcivil procedureaccidental slipactus curiae neminem gravabit

Judgment

\
i
....
A NIYAMAT ALI MOLLA
v.
SONARGON HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. &
ORS.

B OCTOBER 12, 2007

[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.)

Code ofCivil Procedure, 1908; Ss. 151 & 152 and0.21 Rr.97 &
c 99:
Amendment of pleading/judgment/decree-Declaratory suit-
Decreed by trial Court-On appeal, affirmed by High Court and
Supreme Court-Execution ofdecree-Application for amendment of
D plaint for change in the description of the property filed by decree-
holder-Rejected by Executing Court-Affirmed by High Court-On
appeal, Held: Section 152 CPC empowers the Court to correct its own
error in a judgment, decree or order from accidental slip/omission- ·~.
Provision under Civil Procedure Code recognizes inherent power of
E Court which is not confined only to amend its own judgment etc. but
also in general-The provision, however, should not be construed in a
pedantic manner-Thus, a decree could be corrected by the Court in
exercise of its power either under s.151 or s. 152 of the Code-By
allowing the amendment defendant would not be misled nor any
p substitution ofproperty would take place-Only because some blanks
in the schedule of the property have been allowed to be filled in by
such amendment, that by itself may not be a ground to deprive the
respondent from fruit of the decree.

Application for impleadment-Maintainability of-Held: Not
G maintainable, since applicants being not parties to suit, therefore, not
bound by the decree.

Doctrines:

H 346
NIYAMAT ALI MOLLA v. SONARGON HOUSING CO· 347
OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
'r
""'
"Doctrine ofactus curiae nemenim gravabit "-Applicability of A

Respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration and possession of
certain property as also for damages in the Court of Civil Judge. An
ex-parte decree was passed against the appellant He did not prefer
any appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. B
The decree was affirmed by the High Court and also by this Coutt. An
4 application for amendment ofthe plaint as also of the decree containing
y' the Schedule describing the said property was, however, filed by the
respondent before the Executing Court. An objection filed thereagainst
by the appellant was rejected by the Court The said order was upheld c
by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. Later, in this appeal an
application for impleadment has been filed by one 'N' on the ground
that the he was not impleaded as a party in the proceedings although
he had been in possession of the property in question. In the said
application, it was claimed by the applicant that he had been in D
.possession ofthe said property. Respondent-Judgment creditor has also
filed an application in the suit for grant of injunction.

Appellant contended that having regard to the fact that the sisters
of defendant No.1 who were owners of the property had not been
impleaded as parties in the suit and an ex parte decree was obtained
E
by the respondent against the appellant, an irreparable injury would be
caused to him if the application for amendment of plaint is allowed.

Respondents submitted that the court's power to amend a decree
is not only confined to a clerical or arithmetical error but also the F
- ~
pleadings of the parties, if a mistake had occurred in the pleadings and
the same is continued.

Dismissing the appeal and also application for impleadment, the
Court
G
HELD: 1.1. Section 152 of the Code ofCivil Procedure empowers
14- the Court to correct its own error in a judgment, decree or order from
any accidental slip or omission. The principle behind the said provision
is actus curiae nemenim gravabit, i.e., nobody shall be prejudiced by an
H
348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A act of court. [Para 18) [356-E)
1.2. Code of Civil Procedure recognizes the inherent power of the
court. It is not only confined to the amendment ofthe judgment or decree
as envisaged under Section 152 of the code but also inherent power in
general. The courts also have duty to see that the records are true and
B present the correct state of affair. There cannot, however, be any doubt
whatsoever that the court cannot exercise the said jurisdiction so as to
review its own judgment. It cannot, however, exercise its jurisdiction
when no mistake or slip occurred in the decree or order. This provision
should, however, not be construed in a pedantic manner. A decree may,
C therefore, be corrected by the Court both in exercise ofits power under
Section 152 as also under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Such a power of the court is well recognized.
[Para 19) [356-F-H; 357-A)
D Samarendra Nath Sinha & Anr. v. Krishna Kumar Nag, [1967] 2 SCR
18; Bela Debi v. Bon Behary Roy & Ors., AIR (1952) Cal. 86; Lakshmi
Ram Bhuyan v. Hari Prasad Bhuyan & Ors., AIR (2003) SC 371; Pratibha
Singh & Ors. v. Shanti Devi Prasad & Anr., AIR (2003) SC 643 and State
ofPunjab v. Darshan Singh, AIR (2003) SC 4179, referred to.
E 1.3. It is not a case where the defendants could be said to have
been misled. It is now welI settled that the pleadings of the parties are
to be read in their entirety. They are to be construed liberally and not in
a pedantic manner. It is also not a case where by reason of an
amendment, one property is being substituted by the other. Ifthe Court
F has the requisite power to make an amendment of the decree, the same
would not mean that it had gone beyond the decree or passing any
decree. The statements contained in the body of the plaint have
sufficiently described the suit lands. Only because some blanks in the
schedule of the property have been left, the same, by itself, may not be
G a ground to deprive the respondents from the fruit of the decree.
[Para 26) [362-H; 363-A-B]
~··
2. So far as the application for impleadment of the applicants is '
concerned, applicants being not parties to the suit are not bound by the
H decree. They would, thus, be entitled to take recourse to such remedies
+'
NIY AMAT ALI MOLLA v. SON ARGON HOUSING CO- 349
OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. [SINHA, J.]
~
'r which are available to them in law including filing ofan application ~der A
Order 21 Rules 97 and 99 ofthe Code ofCivil Procedure, ifany occasion
arises therefor. As and when the said applicants take recourse to law,
the same has to be determined in accordance with law.
[Para 27] [363-D-EJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 48i16 of B
4 2007.
t From the Judgment and final Order dated 16.05.2006 of the High
Court of Calcutta in Revision Application being C.O. No. 1622 of2006.
Chinmoy Khaladkar, Bimal Chakroborty and Rukhsana Choudµury
c
for the Appellant.
Jaideep Gupta, Rauf Rahim, Dipak Bhattacharya, S. Ray, B.K. Paul
and Suruchi Agarwal for the Respondents.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. I. Leave granted.
2. Respondent No. I filed a suit for declaration and possession as
also for damages in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Baruipur,
24-Parganas (South) in the State of West Bengal. An ex-parte decree E
was passed against the appellant herein who was arrayed as defen~ant
No. 6 in the suit. In the plaint, the suit property was described as under:
"That within the township area 2.09 acres comprising of R.S. Dag
Nos. 340, 341, 342, 343 and 344 ofMouza Tegharia morefully F
)..
~
described in the Schedule "A" hereunder written and hereinafter
referred to as the suit property, is situated."
3. Plaintiff claimed title over the suit property on the basis of
purchases made under two registered deeds of conveyances dated
27.1.1968 comprising of 12 shares of Plot No. 340, 341, 342 and 343 G
of Mouza Tegharia admeasuring 1.39 acres from defendant No. l anp his
- I three sisters. However, in the Schedule of Property, described in the
schedule to the plaint, it was stated :
"All that acres of land now developed for Housing Township H
i •.

350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

-(' .,.
A appertaining to Rs.Dag No. under Khatian Nos. of Mouza
Tegharia, J.L. No. 6, lying and situate within Sonargaon Park, P.S.
Sonarpore, District South 24 Parganas (South)."
4. A decree was passed wherein again the same Schedule of
Property was described as the property involved in the suit. It was
B
directed:
~
"The plaintiff do get a decree for declaration of title and permanent
iajunction against the defendants in respect of the suit property. 1
c It is declared that the plaintiff has right, title and interest in the
suit property.
Defendants are restrained by an order of permanent injunction '
from disturbing or interfering with the peaceful possession of the
plaintiff over the suit property in any way or in any manner
D whatsoever. The other prayer of the plaintiff is refused in view of
my discussion made in the body ofjudgment."
5. Appellant herein did not file any written statement in the said suit.
+-·
He, however, examined himself as a witness. He did not prefer any appeal
E against the said judgment and decree. The said decree indisputably has
been affirmed upto this Court.
6. An application for amendment of the plaint as also of the decree
containing the Schedule describing the said property was, however, filed
on 27.6.2000, inter alia, stating:
F
"That both parties went on trial and adduced both oral and i--
documentary evidence in respect of the suit property and there was
never any dispute as to the identity of the suit of the suit property.
That at the time of drafting of the plaint through inadvertence the
G total area of the Land, R.S. Plot Number and Khatian Number
have not been mentioned in the Schedule of the Plaint through
inadvertence. +,
That it is an accidental error.
H
NIY AMAT ALI MOLLA v. SON ARGON HOUSING CO- 351
OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. (SINHA, J.]
~
'r That it is a clear case of misdescription of the suit property and A
no prejudice will be caused to the defendant if the plaint and the
decree are amended at this stage."
7. On the said averments, the proposal for amendment which was
made is as under : B
"In the Schedule of the Suit Property described in the plaint in the
~ 1st line after the word "All that" the figure "2.09" shall be inserted.
7
In the schedule of the suit property described in the plaint in the
2nd line after the word "R.S. Dag Number" the following plot c
number 340, 341, 342, 343 and 344" shall be inserted.
In the schedule of the suit property described in the plaint in the
3rd line after the word "Khatian Numbers" following Khatian
Number shall be inserted "80, 310, 83"."
D
8. An objection was filed to the said application for amendment by
the appellant, inter alia, contending :
"Whereas after decree in the suit, plaintiff filed an application under
Section 151 of CPC stating that the plaintiff claimed title on the
basis of two deeds of conveyances by purchase from heir of E
Dilbahar Molla and Malekjan Bibi wife of Dolbahar Molla with
the prayer to add different Schedule of property with a new case,
which is not permissible in law. As such plaintiffs application is
liable to be dismissed summarily."
F
__r 9. It was urged that the application for amendment, if allowed, would
give rise to substitution of one property in place of another, particularly,
having regard to the change in the J.L. number.
10. The said objection of the appellant was, however, rejected by
the learned Executing Court. The said order has been upheld by the High G
Court.
,.. ;+-
11. Mr. Chinmoy Khaladkar, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, would submit that having regard to the fact that the sisters of
the defendant No. I who were owners of the property had not been H
352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

-( ,,..
A impleaded as parties in the suit and an ex parte decree was obtained by
the respondent against the appellant herein, an irreparable injmy would
be caused to him if the application for amendment is allowed.
12. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the court's power
B
to amend a decree is not only confined to a clerical or arithmetical error
but also the pleadings of the parties, if a mistake had occurred in the t-
pleadings and the same is continued. Reliance in this behalf has been placed ~
on Bela Debi v. Bon Behary Roy & Ors., AIR(l 952) Cal. 86. It was
furthermore urged that the suit being for enforcing a sale deed, the Dag
c and Khatian number stated in the plaint was determinative as regards
identification of the property. J.L. number, it was urged, has nothing to
do with the identification of the property or the village in which it is
situated. It was pointed out that the plots in question had also been ordered
to be mutated in favour of the respondent. Even an Advocate-
D
Commissioner had also been appointed who has also submitted a report.
13. In this appeal an application for impleadment has been filed by +-
one Niyamat Ali Molla. It has been contended therein that the said
applicant was not impleaded as a party in the proceedings although he
E had been in possession of the property in question. It was submitted that
the applicant has been seriously prejudiced by reason of the impugned
order as he had acquired lawful interest in J.L. No. 52 appertaining to
R.S. Khatian No. 80, R.S. Dag No. 340, 341 and 342 which had been
recorded in his name in the finally published revisional survey settlement
F record of rights. In the said application, it has also been claimed that the
applicants had been in possession of the said property. -~-

14. Respondent is said to have purchased the property by reason
of two sale deeds of sale dated 27 .1.1968. Properties described in the
G first deed of sale are as under :
" 'ka' schedule particulars of the property
In the District of24 Pargana is under Police Station and sub-
+-\ ..;
1.
registry office - Sonarpur, Pargana - Medanmalla at Mouz.a
Teghari, village, included in Touzi No.294 having Ryoti
H
<

~
NIY AMAT ALI MOLLA v. SON ARGON HOUSING CO- 353
OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. [SINHA, J.]
r r Mukarari right, under Khatian No. 80, out of 1.36 decimals A
of land in one jama bearing annual rent of Rs. 5-10-10 pies
1.02 decimals ofland bearing proportionate rent ofRe.0.26
paise J.L. No.52 Re.Sur No.126 Khatian No.8 owner - West
Bengal Govt. There is no other cosharer. In dag No.340 three
hundred fortY . 79 decimals N - other Mouza In <lag No. 342 B
three hundred forty two .24 decimals N -Farez
~

..,, Khatian No. - 81
In dag no.341 three hundred forty one . 33 decimals N - Alta
Bibi c
Total 1.36 one acre thirty six decimals.
Out of that in 12 annas share 1.02 one Acre two decimals ofland ,
2. In the said Police Station at the said Mouza included in the
D
said Touzi, under the said owner, having Ryot Stitiban right,
w1der part Khatian 310 from Khatian No.200 out of 19
decimals in one plot. 37 decimal being proportionate annual
rent .75 paise. There is no other cosharer.
In dag No.343 three hundred forty three out of 49 decimals Danga 'E
land 37 decimals ofland. There is no other cosharer."
15. In the second deed of sale, the property of transferor has been
described as :
" 'ka' schedule particulars of the property F
>-~

1. In the District of24 Parganas under Police Station and sub
registry office - Sonarpur, Pargana - Medanmalla, at Mouza
- Teghari, village, included in Touzi No.294 Re.Sur No.126,
J.L. No. - 52 having Ryoti Mokarari right under Khatian
G
No.80, out of 1.36 decimals ofland in our jama bearing annual
rent of Rs.5-10-10 pies 34 decimals of land bearing
proportionate rent of Re.1.42 paise owner - West Bengal
Govt. There is no other cosharer.
In dag no.340 three hundred forty .79 decimals N - other Mouza H
4
354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 11 S.C.R.
.,......_
-{
,;.
A In dag No.342 three hundred forty two .24 decimals N - Farez.
Khatian No. - 81

In dag no.341 three hundred forty one .33 decimals N -Alta Bibi

B Total 1.36 one Acre thirty six decimals
Out of that in 4 annas share .34 thirty four decimals of land.
2. In the said Police Station, at the said Mouza, included in the ~

said Touzi under the said owner, having Ryot Stitiban Right,
c under part Khatian 310 from Khatian No.200 twelve decimals
of land bearing annual rent of .25 paise. There is no other
cosharer.
In dag No.343 three hundred forty three .49 decimals Danga land
out of that in 4 annas share 12 decimals ofland
D
under two khatians total 46 decimals forty six decimals
Particulars ofproperty mentioned in Schedule 'kha'

In the District of 24 Parganas, under Police Station and sulrregistry
E - Sonarpur, Pargana - Medan Malla, at Mouza - Teghari village
included in Touzi No. - 294, J.L. No. 52 Re. Sur No.126, having
Korfa possessory Right, in one jama under Khatian No. - 83, .24
twenty four decimals ofland bearing annual jama ofRs.14.00 owner
West Bengal Government. There is no other cosharer.
(-
F In dag No.344 three hundred forty four Danga 24 twnty four "
decimals N. Sudhir and others.
i--

In two schedules total land .70 seventy decimals. !
1---
The Society will bear the cost of Registration of this Deed of Sale."
G 1-
16. Respondent herein had filed an application in the said suit for
,.,_,'
injunction. An affidavit in opposition thereto was filed therein by the ~
defendant No.4 stating it was stated: ~
'
"That before dealing with the plaintiff's allegation paragraphwise,
H
r
NIY AMAT ALI MOLLA v. SONARGON HOUSING CO- 355
; ..,,,. OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. [SINHA, J.]
these defendants state the facts ofthis case as follows : A
(a) That .79 dee. in <lag No.340, .33 dee, in Dag No.341, .24
dee, in Dag No.342 .49 dee in Dag No.343 originally
belonged to Alta Bibi and the same has been correctly recorded
in C.S. R.0.R. from her the same was inherited by Bibijan
B
Bibi wife of Dilbahar Molla, During his life time said Bibijan
-+ Bibi transferred .79 dee in Dag No.340, .24 in Dag No.342
! and .33 in Dag No.341 by an oral Heba in favour of Dilbahar
Molla and in terms with the said oral Heba, the possession of
the said properties were delivered in favour of said Dilbahar
Molla, remain in possession of the said properties as the
c
absolute owner thereof denying everybody else's right, title and
interest thereon. In the R.S. R.O.R., the said Dilbahar Molla
has been recorded as Rayat Mokrari Sattiban. In respect of
.49 dee in Dag No.343, said Dilbahar inherited from said
D
Bibijan Bibi his wife on her demise 1/4th share under the
-t Mohammedan law and thus said Dilbahar became owner in
respect of .12 dee. The same is also correctly recorded in R.S.
R.O.R.
(b) That in Dag No.344 said Dilbahar Molla had .24 dee, land E
and the same is also correctly recorded in R.S.R.O.R.
(c) That after the demise of Bibijan Bibi, the first wife of Dilbahar,
said Dilbahar married Malekjan Bibi and by a registered deed
of conveyance said Dilbahar Molla transferred .70 dee. in
favour of his wife Malekjan Bibi out of his total property, i.e. F
- r- .79 dee in Dag No.340, .33 dee in Dag No.341, .24 dee in
Dag No.342, .12 dee in Dag No.343 and .24 dee in Dag
No.344 total being 1.72.
irr4
(d) Subsequently, said Dilbahar Molla died leaving behind one son G
'!!I(
and two daughters through the first wife, Second wife and three
,J- sons and two daughters through the second wife. Thus out of
remain 1.02 dee ofDilbahar, the second wife Malekjan Bibi
had 8th each son had 7/48th and each daughter had 7/96. The
cosharers of the said property have never partitioned the same H
,4
356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

'f"
A and they are in joint possession thereof."
17. What was, therefore, denied and disputed was the claim of the
plaintiffs-respondents in respect of purchase of the property from Niyamat
Ali and others. Similar statements were also made in the written statement
From a perusal of the judgment passed by the Assistant District Judge,
B
24 Parganas, Baruipur in Title Suit No. 144 of 1993, it appears that the
possession and title of defendant No.4 had been taken into consideration
therein. No issue was framed in regard to identification of the said property. "!''

The learned Judge held :
c "On perusal of the same, I am of the view that the plaintiff has title
as well as possession in the suit property and the defendants have
failed to prove their possession and title in the suit property. In view
of the documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the
R.S.R.O.R. appears to be erroneous and baseless. The defendants
D have no right to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff
over the suit property. To my mind, it is a fit and proper case where
the plaintiff can get decree for declaration of title and permanent
injunction and nothing more."

E 18. Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the Court
to correct its own error in a judgment, decree or order from any accidental
slip or omission. The principle behind the said provision is actus curiae
nemenim gravabit, i.e., nobody shall be prejudiced by an act of court.
19. Code of Civil Procedure recognises the inherent power of the
F court. It is not only confined to the amendment of the judgment or decree
as envisaged under Section 152 of the code but also inherent power in 'i-
general. The courts also have duty to see that the records are true and
present the correct state of affair. There cannot, however, be any doubt
whatsoever that the court cannot exercise the said jurisdiction so as to ~
G review its judgment It cannot also exercise its jurisdiction when no mistake
or slip occurred in the decree or crder. This provision, in our opinion,
should, however, not be construed in a pedantic manner. A decree may, ~
therefore, be corrected by the Court both in exercise of its power under
Section 152 as also under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
H
t-
NIY AMAT ALI MOLLA v. SON ARGON HOUSING CO- 357
OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. [SINHA, J.]
~1
Such a power of the court is well recognized. A
20. In Samarendra Nath Sinha & Anr. v. Krishna Kumar Nag,
[1967] 2 SCR 18, this Court held :
"Now it is well settled that there is an inherent power in the court
which passed the judgment to correct a clerical mistake or an error .B
arising from an accidental slip or omission and to vary its judgment
-+ so as to give effect to its meaning and intention. "Every court," said
"'( Bowen L.J. in Mellor v. Swira [30 Ch. 239] "has inherent power
over its own records so long as those records are within its power
and that it can set right any mistake in them. An order even when c
passed and entered may be amended by the court so as to carry
out its intention and express the meaning of the court when the order
was made." In Jan/drama Iyer v. Nilakanta Iyer AIR (1962) SC
633 the decree as drawn up in the High Court had used the words
"mesne profits" instead of"net profits". In fact the use of the words D
"mesne profits" came to be made probably because while narranting
the facts, those words were inadvertently used in the judgment."
21. The question came up for consideration before the Calcutta High
Court in Bela Debi (supra), wherein it was held E
"It will thus be seen that there is a diversity of judicial opinion as
to how far a Court can go in rectifying its own decree. Where, of
course, the amendment is in order to carry out its own meaning,
there is no doubt about the power of the Court in effecting such
corrections (see In re St. Nazaire Co., (1879) 12 ch. D. 88; F
,,.
Preston Banking Go. v. Allsop, (1895) 1 Ch. 141). Nor can it
be disputed that it has power to rectify mistakes which are of a
ministerial kind (see Mellor v. Swire, (1885) 30 Ch. D 239). But
the difficulty arises when it is found that the mistake is not one of
the Court but is a mistake of the parties themselves. Mistakes in G
the description of properties in deeds, is illustrative of this kind of
}- mistake. It is the paiiies who have made the mistake, and the.
mistake is continued in the pleadings and the decree. According
to one view, section 152 is confined to acts of the Court and,
H
358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.
1

A therefore, mistakes of parties made in the pleadings or deeds and -<(' -:::

d9cuments evidencing the transaction cannot be corrected
{Ramchander Sarup v. Mazhar Hussain, A. I. R. 6 (1919) ALL
264). The second view is that under this section and section 151,
plaint, judgment and decree all can be amended (see Shiam Lal
B v. Mt. Moona Kuar, A.LR. 21 (1934) Oudh 352 at p. 354; Ram
Chandra v. Jamna Prasad, A. I. R. (22) 1935 Oudh 92). A third
view is that it is permissible under such circumstances to amend
the decree and it is unnecessary to amend the plaint (Badri Pande y
v. Chhangur Pandey, A. I. R. 20 [1933] All 102; Jamini Bala
c Biswas v. Bank of Chettinad Ltd, A. I. R. (22) 193 5 Rang. 522
at p. 523). Lastly, there is the view, which I have already noted,
which goes to the extent of holding that the Court cannot only
rectify pleadings and decrees but rectify documents evidencing the
transactions themselves, upon which the suit was founded.
D
I shall now state, what in my opinion, is the true meaning of section
152, Civil P. C. I am not in favour of giving a narrow construction
to section 152. I do not agree that section 152 must necessarily f-·
refer to an 'accidental slip or omission' of the Court itself, or its
ministerial officers. It does not say so in the section itself, and should
E
not be interpreted as such. Where it is the Court's o~ accidental
slip or omission, or that of its ministerial officers, there can be no
doubt that the section applies. But it gives power to rectify any
accidental slip or omission in a judgment, decree or order, and
might include an accidental slip or omission traceable to the conduct
F
of the parties themselves. But it must be an 'accidental slip or
omission'. A mistake made by the parties in a, deed upon which i-
the suit is founded, and repeated in the judgment, decree or order,
may or may not be an 'accidental slip or omission.' Where it is
clear, that such is the case, then I do not see why the Court cannot
G
set it right. In doing so, what is going to be rectified is, the judgment
decree or order, and it is not at all necessary to rectify either the
pleadings or the deed. In making such corrections, however, the ~
. Court can only proceed on the footing that there could be no
reasonable doubt as to what it really intended to say in its judgment
H
t-
NIY AMAT ALI MOLLA v. SON ARGON HOUSING CO- 359
OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. [SINHA, J.]
'r decree or order. It cannot go into any disputed questions. If there A
is a particular description of a property in a deed, and a suit has
been instituted on the strength of that description, and a decree
passed, it is not permissible in proceedings under section 152 to
go into disputed questions as to what property was intended to
be dealt with, by the parties in the deed. I agree with Gentle C. J. B
that such a question can only be dealt with, in appropriate
.; proceedings under the Specific Relief Act (see T. M.
y Ramakrishnan Chettiar v. G. Ramakrishnan Chettiar, A. I. R.
35 (1948) Mad. 13). But it may so happen that the mistake is so
palpable that nobody can possibly have any doubt as to what the c
parties meant or what the Court meant when it passed its judgment,
decree or order. For example, suppose in a conveyance a property
is described as '24 Chowringhee Road, Bhawanipur'. It would be
clear to everybody what property was meant, and it cannot be .
seriously doubted that in abating that the property was in D
'Bhawanipur', the parties had committed an 'accidental slip or
' ~ omission'. In such a case, I would not go to the extent of holding
that the Court has no power to correct the judgment, decree or
order which has repeated the. mistake. In doing so, the Court need
not correct the pleadings or the document but its own decision. In E
my opinion, it is not necessary in such a case to amend the
..... pleadings or to rectify the deed, therefore, no question arises as
to whether the Court has power to do so. It is, however, quite
clear that such cases must be of rare occurrence, and the scope
thereof is severely limited. The power cannot be extended to the F
_}- resolving of controvertial points, and a decision as to what the ,
parties intended or did not intent to do. Apart from this exceptional
case, I hold that the Court cannot correct errors anterior to the
proceedings before it. For such a purpose, the proper proceeding
is by way of a suit under section 31, Specific Relief Act. To this G
extent, I ~gree respectfully with the view enunciated by Gentle C.
J. in T. M Ramakrishnan Chettiar v. G. Radhakrishnan
,~
Chettiar, A. I. R. 35 (1948) Mad. 13 and the view expressed by
Young J. in Shujaatmand Khan v. Gobind Behari, A. I. R. 21
(1934) ALL. 100 (2). Applying these principles to the facts of this H
360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 11 S.C.R.

A case, I think that the rectification asked for is impossible. If there
has been a mistake in the original agreement it is a mistake which
is fundamental, and it is impossible without going into evidence, to
decide as to what the parties meant. There are facts in favour of
the contention put forward by either party and I cannot describe
B it as an error (if there is at all any error) as can be called "an
accidental slip or omission" as contemplated in section 152. In any
event, such slips or omissions cannot be rectified in proceedings
under section 152 or even under S. 151 of the Code."
22. We, with respect, agree with the aforenoticed view.
c
23. In Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan v. Hari Prasad Bhuyan & Ors., AIR
(2003) SC 371, this Court opined that when a decree had been drawn
up by the High Court, the Court can take recourse to Section 152 of the
Code stating :
D
"In our opinion, the successful party has no other option but to
have recourse of Section 152 of CPC which provides for clerical
or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors
arising therein from any accidental slip or omission being corrected
E at any time by the Court either on its own motion or on the
application of any of the parties. A reading of the judgment of the ...
High Court shows that in its opinion the plaintiffs were found entitled
to succeed in the suit. There is an accidental slip or omission in
manifesting the intention of the Court by couching the reliefs to
F which the plaintiffs were entitled in the event of their succeeding in
the suit. Section 152 enables the Court to vary its judgment so as
to give effect to its meaning and intention. Power of the Court to
amend its orders so as to carry out the intention and express the
meaning of the Com1 at the time when the order was made was
G
upheld by Bowen L.J. in re Swire; Mellor v. Swire, (1885) 30
Ch, D. 239, subject to the only limitation that the amendment can
be made without in justice or on terms which preclude injustice.
Lindley L.J. observed that ifthe order of the Court, though drawn
up, did not express the order as intended to be made then "there
H
is no such magic in passing and entering an order as to deprive
+
NIYAMAT ALI MOLLA v. SONARGON HOUSING CO- 361
OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. [SINHA, J.]
~
").
the Court of jurisdiction to make its own records true, and if an A
order as passed and entered does not express the real order of
the Court, it would, as it appears to me, be shocking to say that
the party aggrieved cannot come here to have the record set right,
but must go to House of Lords by way of appeal."
B
24. The same Bench again in Pratibha Singh & Ors. v. Shanti Devi
Prasad & Anr., AIR (2003) SC 643 held :
-+
y "When the suit as to immovable property has been decreed and
the property is not definitely identified, the defect in the court record
caused by overlooking of provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 3 c
,. and Order 20 Rule 3 of the CPC is capable of being cured. After
all a successful plaintiff should not be deprived of the fruits of
decree. Resort can be had to Section 152 or Section 47 of the
CPC depending on the facts and circumstances of each case --
which of the two provisions would be more appropriate, just and D
convenient to invoke. Being an inadvertent error, not affecting the
merits of the case, it may be corrected under Section 152 of the
CPC by the Court which passed the decree by supplying the
omission. Alternatively, the exact description of decretal property
may be ascertained by the Executing Court as a question relating E
to execution, discharge or satisfaction of decree within the meaning
of Section 47 CPC. A decree of a competent Court should not,
as far as practicable, be allowed to be defeated on account of an
accidental slip or omission. In the facts and circumstances of the
present case we think it would be more appropriate to invoke F
-( Section 47 of the CPC."

25. In State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh, AIR (2003) SC 4179,
however, it was held :
_. "Section 152 provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical G
mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein
..._ from any accidental slip or omission. The exercise ofthis power
' contemplates the correction of mistakes by the Court of its
Jo

ministerial actions and does not contemplate of passing effective
H
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.
+
A judicial orders after the judgment, decree or order. The settled ·-<' ~

position oflaw 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
B 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 odimitations provided therein. t·
The powers under Section 152 of the Code are neither to be "r
equated with the power of review nor can be said to be akin to
c 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
D 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
E 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
F Sections 151and152 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
G Pradesh and Anr., and Jayalakshmi·Coelho v. Oswald Joseph
Coelho, [2001] 4 SCC 181." -
26. It is not a case where the defendants could be said to have been .......\
misled. It is now well settled that the pleadings of the parties are to be
read in their entirety. They are to be construed liberally and not in a
H
NIY AMAT ALI MOLLA v. SONARGON HOUSING CO- 363
OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. [SINHA, J.]
~ ')- pedantic manner. It is also not a case where by reason of an amendment, A
one property is being substituted by the other. Ifthe Court has the requisite
power to make an amendment of the decree, the same would not mean
that it had gone beyond the decree or passing any decree. The statements
contained in the body of the plaint have sufficiently described the suit lands.,
Only because some blanks in the schedule of the property have been left, B
the same, by itself, may not be a ground to deprive the respondents from
~ the fruit of the decree. If the appellant herein did not file any written
y
statement, he did so at its own peril. Admittedly, he examined himself as'
a witness in the case. He, therefore, was aware of the issues raised in the
suit. It is stated that an Advocate-Commissioner has also been appointed. c
We, therefore, are of the opinion that only because the JL numbers in the,
schedule was missing, the same by itself would not be a ground to interfere
with the impugned order.
27. So far as the application for impleadment of the applicants are,
D
concerned, they being not parties to the suit are not bound by the decree.
They would, thus, be entitled to take recourse to such remedies which
---4
are available to them in law including filing of an application under Order
21 Rules 97 and 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if any occasion arises
therefor. As and when the said applicants take recourse to law, the same
E
has to be determined in accordance with law.
28. This appeal and the application for impleadment are dismissed
accordingly. It would, however, for the Executing Court to consider at
the time of execution of the decree to ascertain whether there exists any
difficulty in executing the decree or not. In the facts and circumstances of · F
__/- the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.
S.K.S. Appeal and application for impleadment dismissed.