Aradhna Jain v. Dinesh Kumar Jain and Ors

o 352oo o oINoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABoANDoHARYANAooooooooooo o o o o o AToCHANDIGARHo ooooo o o o o o o o Reservedoon:o21.04.2025o Pronouncedoon:o04.07.2025o

1.oCR-97-2025o(O&M)o o AradhnaoJaino o oo ooo o o o o ….Petitionero Versusoo DineshoKumaroJainoandoOthersoo o o oooooooo o ...Respondentso o

2.oCR-1990-2025o(O&M)o o AnshuloJainoandoOthersoo o o o o o o ….Petitionerso o DineshoKumaroJainoandoOthersoo o o o o ...Respondentso o CORAM:oo HON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoVIKRAMoAGGARWALo o Present:o Mr.oAmitoJhanji,oSenioroAdvocateowitho o o Ms.oNitioJain,oAdvocateoando o o Ms.oNanditaoVerma,oAdvocateo o o forotheopetitioneroinoCRoNo.97oofo2025.o o o o Ms.oAnanyaoGhosh,oAdvocateoando o o Mr.oAmandeepoSingh,oAdvocateo o o forotheopetitionersoinoCRoNo.1990oofo2025.o o o o Ms.oKiranoBalaoJain,oAdvocateoando o o Ms.oAnjalioRani,oAdvocateo o o fororespondentsoNo.2(i)oando2(iii)oando4.o o o o Mr.oAmitoJain,oSenioroAdvocateowitho o o Mr.oSudhiroParuthi,oAdvocateo o o foroLRsooforespondentoNo.9.o o o ****o o VIKRAMoAGGARWAL,oJo

1.o o Theo aforetitledo revisiono petitionso shallo beo decidedo byo wayo ofo thiso commonojudgment,ofor,ochallengeoinobothorevisionopetitionsoisotootheoorderodatedo

09.12.2024o(AnnexureoP-1)opassedobyotheoCourtoofolearnedoCiviloJudgeo(Junioro Division),o Jalandharo video whicho twoo applicationso wereo decided.o Theo firsto applicationopreferredounderoSectiono152/153oofotheoCodeoofoCiviloProcedure,o1908o (foroshorto'CPC')oforocorrectionoofoScheduleoAoformingopartoofotheopreliminaryo decreeo datedo 29.03.1985o waso allowed.o Theo secondo applicationo movedo byo theo MAMTAgMALHOpTRrAesentopetitionerounderoSectiono151oCPCoseekingodirectionsothatowheneveroanyo 2025.07.04g16:29 Igattestgtogthegaccuracygand authenticitygofgthisgorder/judgment CR-97-2025o(O&M)oandoAnothero o o o o o o -2-o applicationoisofiledobyotheoplaintiffoquaotheopropertyoinoquestion,odueonoticeobeo givenotootheoapplicantsobeforeoadjudicatingoonoanyosuchoapplicationowasodismissed.o

2.o o Challengeohasoalsoobeenolaidotootheoorderodatedo23.12.2024o(Annexureo P-3)ovideowhichotheoreportoofotheoLocaloCommissioneroappointedovideoorderodatedo

23.05.2024otoovisitotheoplotoNo.57,oBlock-C,oVeeroNagar,oJainoColony,oDelhiowaso soughtoandopartiesowereodirectedotooremainopresentoatotheotimeoofovisitoofotheoLocalo Commissioneroatotheospot.oWhereasoCRoNo.97oofo2025ohasobeenopreferredobyoMs.o AradhnaoJainowhooisostatedotootheoowneroofoUpperoGroundoFlooroandoFourthoFlooro ofopropertyobearingoNo.57,oVeeroNagar,oJainoColony,oDelhi,oCRoNo.1990oofo2025o hasobeenofiledobyoMr.oAnshuloJain,oMr.oAnujoJainoandoMs.oAnitaoJainowhooareotheo ownersoofoFirstoandoSecondoFlooroofotheosaidoproperty.oo

3.o o FactsoshalloessentiallyobeoderivedofromoCRoNo.97oofo2025.oHowever,o whereveronecessary,ofactsoasoregardsoCRoNo.1990oofo2025oshalloalsoobeomentioned.o OneoSh.oVidyaoParkashosonoofoSh.oJitoMaloJainofiledoaosuito(AnnexureoP-14)oforo partitionoofo7/30osharesoofoJointoHinduoFamilyoPropertyomentionedoinoScheduleoAo andoScheduleoBothereofoandofororenditionoofoaccountsoofotheosaidoJointoHinduo FamilyoProperty.oScheduleoAomentionedoimmovableopropertiesowhereasoScheduleo BomentionedomovableopropertiesoandoScheduleoComentionedobusinessoconcerns.o ScheduleoAolistedo17opropertiesooutoofowhich,otheopresentolisoisoconcernedowitho propertyomentionedoatoSerialoNo.16oi.e.oPlotoNo.51,oVeeroColony,oDelhi.oTheosuito wasodecreedobyotheoCourtoofolearnedoSub-Judge,oJalandharovideojudgmentoando decreeodatedo29.03.1985o(AnnexureoP-17)oandoaopreliminaryodecreeoforopartitionoofo theopropertiesomentionedoinoScheduleoAoandoScheduleoBowasopassed.oThisodecreeo wasoupheldoinoFirstoAppeal.oRSAoNo.786oofo2010otitledoaso'RajinderoKumaroVs.o Smt.oSatyaoWatio@oSatyaoandoOthers'owasodecidedoono06.07.2015o(AnnexureoP-18)o ando theo decreeo waso upheld.o Theo Specialo Leaveo Petitiono againsto theo saido decisionoofotheoHighoCourtowasodismissedoono29.03.2016o(AnnexureoP-19).o MAMTAgMALHOTRA 2025.07.04g16:29 Igattestgtogthegaccuracygand authenticitygofgthisgorder/judgment CR-97-2025o(O&M)oandoAnothero o o o o o o -3-o

4.o o AfterotheodismissaloofotheoSLP,oanoapplicationo(AnnexureoP-20)oforo theograntoofofinalodecreeoandopartitionoofopropertiesomentionedoinoScheduleoA,oBo andoCowasofiled.oVideoorderodatedo23.05.2024o(AnnexureoP-22),oSh.oAniloVerma,o AdvocateowhoohadobeenoappointedoasoLocaloCommissioneroono15.09.2022owaso directedotoovisitotheopropertyoforoinspectionotoosuggestotheomodeoofopartition.oIto appearsoandoinofactoitoisotheocaseoofotheopetitionersothatoafterotheopassingoofothiso order,otheopetitionersocameotooknowothatotheopropertyoownedobyothemoi.e.oPloto No.57,oVeeroNagar,oJainoColony,oDelhio(foroshorto'propertyoinodispute')owasoaoparto ofotheopartitionosuit.oItoisotheirocaseothatoinoScheduleoA,otheonumberoofotheopropertyo wasomentionedoaso51oand,otherefore,othereowasonoooccasionotooinvolveopropertyo No.57,oVeeroNagar,oJainoColony,oDelhioinotheosame.o

5.o o TheocaseosetoupobyotheopetitioneroAradhnaoJainoisothatoaoSub-Leaseo deedodatedo20.12.1967o(AnnexureoP-4)ohadobeenoexecutedoinofavouroofooneoSh.o SurinderoKumaroasoregardsotheopropertyoinodispute.oRequisiteoformalitiesoinofavouro Sh.oSurinderoKumarowereocarriedoout.oo

6.o o Sh.o Surindero Kumaro executedo ao Generalo Powero ofo Attorneyo ono

03.02.1986o(AnnexureoP-6)oasoregardsotheopropertyoinodisputeoinofavouroofooneoSh.o Vinodo Jain.o Ano agreemento too sello datedo 04.12.1985o (Annexureo P-7)o waso alsoo executedobyoSh.oSurinderoKumaroinofavouroofoSmt.oSudhaoJain,owifeoofoSh.oVinodo Jaino witho regardo too propertyo ino dispute.o Ao Specialo Powero ofo Attorneyo datedo

03.02.1986o(AnnexureoP-8)oexecutedoinofavouroofoSh.oVinodoJainoandoaoWillodatedo

03.02.1986owasoalsooexecutedoinofavouroofoSmt.oSudhaoJain,owifeoofoSh.oVinodo Jain.oSh.oSurinderoKumaroisostatedotoohaveoexpiredowhereafteroprobateowasograntedo inofavouroSh.oVinodoJainoono24.12.1986.o

7.o o Sh.oVinodoJainoandoSmt.oSudhaoJainoexecutedoanoagreementotoosello datedo16.09.1999oinofavouroofoSh.oKhairatioRamoJainoasoregardsotheoSecondoFlooro ofotheopropertyoinodisputeo(AnnexureoP-10).oAnotheroGeneraloPoweroofoAttorneyo MAMTAgMALHOTRA 2025.07.04g16:29 Igattestgtogthegaccuracygand authenticitygofgthisgorder/judgment CR-97-2025o(O&M)oandoAnothero o o o o o o -4-o wasoexecutedobyoSh.oVinodoJainoinofavouroofoSmt.oKailashoWatioJain,owifeoofoSh.o KhairatioRamoJainoandoaoWillowasoexecutedobyoSmt.oSudhaoJainoasoregardsotheoFirsto Flooro ino favouro ofo Smt.o Kailasho Watio Jain.o Manyo sucho othero documentso wereo executedoandofinallyoconveyanceodeedodatedo01.06.2001owasoexecutedobetweenotheo Delhio Developmento Authorityo ando Sh.o Surindero Kumaro througho Attorneyso Sh.o KhairatioRamoJainoandoSmt.oKailashoWatioJainoJain,oAradhnaoJainoetc.oSh.oKhairatio RamoJainoandoSmt.oKailashoWatioJainoexecutedoaoreleaseodeedo(AnnexureoP-12)oino favouroofotheopetitioneroAradhnaoJainoono30.01.2002oandomutationsoetc.owereoalsoo carriedoout.o

8.o o TheocaseoofotheopetitioneroisothatoinotheoScheduleoA,otheopropertyoato serialoNo.16owasomentionedoaso51,oVeeroColony,oDelhiooandonotoPlotoNo.57,oVeero Nagar,oJainoColony,oDelhioand,otherefore,otheopetitionerohadonoooccasionoororeasono toodoubtotheovalidityoofotheotitleopassedotooher.oItoisotheocaseoofotheopetitionerothatoito iso onlyo wheno theo Localo Commissionero visitedo theo spoto thato ito cameo too hero knowledgeo thato theo propertyo ino disputeo waso beingo projectedo too beo ao parto ofo ScheduleoAoandothatoanoapplicationomovedounderoSectiono152/153oforocorrectiono hado beeno allowed.o Ito waso undero theseo circumstanceso thato ano applicationo undero Sectiono151oCPCowasomovedowhichowasodismissed.o

9.o o Learnedocounseloforotheopartiesowereoheard.o

10.o o Sh.oAmitoJhanji,olearnedoSeniorocounselorepresentingotheopetitioneroino CRo No.97o ofo 2025o ando Ms.o Ananyao Ghosh,o learnedo counselo representingo theo petitionersoinoCRoNo.1990oofo2025ostrenuouslyourgedothatotheopropertyoinodisputeo waso noto ao parto ofo Scheduleo Ao and,o therefore,o theo petitionerso areo bonao fideo purchaserso ofo theo propertyo ino disputeo foro considerationo withouto noticeo ofo anyo litigationoandotheosaleoinotheirofavourocannot,obyoanyostretchoofoimagination,obeo statedotoobeohitobyotheoprinciplesoofolisopendens.oLearnedocounseloreferredotooallo MAMTAgMALHOTRA 2025.07.04g16:29 Igattestgtogthegaccuracygand authenticitygofgthisgorder/judgment CR-97-2025o(O&M)oandoAnothero o o o o o o -5-o documentsoplacedoonorecordoandomadeostrenuousoeffortsotooconvinceotheoCourtothato theirotitleowouldonotobeoaffected.o

11.o o ItowasosubmittedothatounderoSectiono152/153oCPC,ocorrectionoinotheo Scheduleo Ao couldo noto haveo beeno orderedo too beo madeo withouto thereo beingo ao correspondingoamendmentoinotheoplaint.oItowasosubmittedothatotheoonlyoremedyo was,otherefore,otooseekoamendmentoinotheoplaintoratherothanoseekingocorrectionoino theoSchedule.o

12.o o Referringo too theo plainto (Annexureo P-4),o ito waso pointedo outo thato defendanto No.10o Sh.o Surindero Kumaro waso theo predecessoro ino interesto ofo theo petitioneroandoSh.oSurinderoKumarocontestedotheosuitoonomeritsobyowayoofohiso writtenostatemento(AnnexureoP-15).oAnoapplicationounderoOrdero11oRuleo14oCPCo wasomovedobyotheoplaintiffofollowedobyocertainootheroapplicationsoafterowhichotheo suitowasodecreedoono29.03.1985.oReferenceowasomadeotooissuesoNo.6oando18o(Pageo Nos.207oando209oofotheopaperobook).oItowasosubmittedothatoaospecificostandohado beenotakenobyoSh.oSurinderoKumarothatotheopropertyoinodisputeowasohisoexclusiveo property.oo

13.o o Itowasosubmittedothatoonceothatothereowasonoodecreeoquaotheopropertyo inodispute,otheosaleoinofavouroofotheopetitionerowouldonotobeohitobyotheoprinciplesoofo lisopendensoandotheopetitionerowouldobeotakenotoobeoaobonaofideopurchaseroofotheo propertyoinodisputeoforoconsiderationowithoutonoticeoofoanyolitigation.oo

14.o o Inosupportoofohisocontentions,oMr.oAmitoJhanji,olearnedoSeniorocounselo placesorelianceouponotheojudgmentsopassedobyotheoSupremeoCourtoofoIndiaoinotheo casesoofo'U.P.oSRTCoVs.oImtiazoHussain',o(2006)o1oSCCo380,o'DwarkaoDasoVs.o StateoofoM.P.oandoAnother',o(1999)o3oSCCo500oando'JayalakshnioCoelhooVs.o OswaldoJosephoCoelho',o(2001)o4oSCCo181,ojudgmentsopassedobyothisoCourtoinotheo casesoofo'GitaoRamoKalsyoVs.oArjanoSinghoKalsyoandoOthers'o(RSAoNo.2031oofo 1978,odecidedoono16.02.1996)oando'JagdishoChandoGuptaoandoAnotheroVs.oDr.o MAMTAgMALHOTRA 2025.07.04g16:29 Igattestgtogthegaccuracygand authenticitygofgthisgorder/judgment CR-97-2025o(O&M)oandoAnothero o o o o o o -6-o RajinderoParshadoandoOthers'o(CRoNo.2570oofo2000,odecidedoono20.03.2002),o judgmentopassedobyotheoHighoCourtoofoOrissao:oCuttackoinotheocaseoofo'Netranandao DalaioVs.oRatnabatioNayako(dead)oandoAnother'o(W.P.o(C)oNo.12357oofo2008,o decidedoono16.07.2016)oasoalsootheojudgmentopassedobyotheoHighoCourtoofoMadraso inotheocaseoofo'DevarajanoandoOthersoVs.oC.P.oMythilioandoOthers',o2020oSCCo OnlineoMado16449.o

15.o o Inosupportoofoherocontentions,oMs.oAnanyaoGhosh,olearnedocounselo placesorelianceouponotheojudgmentsopassedobyotheoSupremeoCourtoofoIndiaoinotheo casesoofo'S.oSatnamoSinghoandoOthersoVs.oSurenderoKauroandoAnother',o(2009)o 2oSCCo562oando'CrystaloDevelopersoVs.oAshaoLataoGhosho(Smt)o(Dead)oThrougho LRsoandoOthers',o(2005)o9oSCCo375oasoalsootheojudgmentopassedobyotheoAllahabado HighoCourtoinotheocaseoofo'WalioBandioBibioVs.oTabeyaoBibi',o1919oSCCoOnlineo Allo282.o

16.o o Mr.o Amito Jain,o learnedo Senioro counselo representingo theo LRso ofo respondento No.9o submittedo thato noo illegalityo waso committedo byo theo Courto concernedo ino allowingo theo applicationo undero Sectionso 152/153o CPC.o Learnedo SeniorocounseloreferredotootheoprovisionsoofoSectionso152/153oCPCoandosubmittedo thato theo Courto waso dulyo authorizedo too ordero correctiono ino theo Scheduleo A.o ReferenceowasomadeotootheowrittenostatementosubmittedobyoSh.oSurinderoKumaro whereinoheohadospecificallyomentionedoaboutobeingoowneroofoplotoNo.57,oVeero Nagar,oJainoColony,oDelhi.o

17.o o Itowasofurtherosubmittedothatothreeoordersohaveobeenochallengedobyo wayo ofo oneo revisiono petitiono whicho iso noto permissibleo and,o therefore,o ono thiso groundoalone,otheorevisionopetitionodeservesotoobeodismissed.o

18.oo o Itowasofurtherosubmittedothatotheoremedy,oifoanyowithotheopetitionerso wasotoomoveoanoapplicationounderoOrdero22oRuleo10oCPCoandonototoofileotheo revisiono petitiono againsto theo ordero video whicho theo applicationo undero Sectiono MAMTAgMALHOTRA 2025.07.04g16:29 Igattestgtogthegaccuracygand authenticitygofgthisgorder/judgment CR%&$%2 25o'O()*o3ndoAno14ero o o o -7-152/153 CPC was allowed. In support of his contentions, learned Senior counsel placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Surjit Singh Vs. Harbans Singh 1996 AIR (SC) 135, Chandier Bhan

(D) Through LR Sher Singh Vs. Mukhtiar Singh and Others 2024 (3) RCR (Civil) 141 and Usha Sinha Vs. Dina Ram and others 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 145 as also the judgments passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Shri Jai Singh Vs. Sardar Singh and others 2009 (5) RCR (Civil) 723, Pritam Singh Vs. P.Didar Singh and another 1976 RLR 586, Saudagar Singh versus Amir Singh and others 2009 (4) RCR (Civil) 638, Gulzara Singh and others versus Devinder Singh and others 2004 (3) PLR 330 and The Punjab Wakf Board, Chandigarh versus Bakshish Singh 2021 (2) LAR 537 and Piara Singh son of Karam Singh Vs. Baljinder Singh son of Karam Singh 2015 (3) RCR (Civil) 73.

¶19I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper books.

¶20Section 152 CPC provides for amendment of judgments, decrees or orders whereas Section 153 provides for general power to amend;

¶152Amendment 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.

¶153General power to amend.— The Court may at any time, and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it may think fit, amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit; and all necessary amendments shall be made for the purpose of determining the real question or issue raised by or depending on such proceeding. CR%&$%2 25o'O()*o3ndoAno14ero o o o -8-

¶21Concededly, Suit No.114 of 1982 (Annexure P-14) was instituted by one Vidya Parkash Jain against Charanji Lal Jain and others including Surender Kumar son of Charanji Lal Jain (defendant No.10) for possession by partition of 7/30 shares of the Joint Hindu Family property mentioned in Schedule A & B. Still further, it is an admitted fact that the said proceedings have become final after preliminary decree for partition having been passed vide judgment and decree dated 29.03.1985 (Annexure P-17) and Special Leave Petition having been dismissed on 29.03.2016.

¶22Schedule A attached with the plaint gave the details of immovable properties which included the property in question at Serial No.16 and mentioned as Plot No.51, Vir Colony, Delhi. The written statement of defendant No.10 Surender Kumar, who was the owner of the said property is on record as Annexure P-15 wherein in the preliminary objections itself, he states that he is the owner of Plot No.57, Vir Colony, Delhi. From a perusal of the plaint, written statements, judgments passed in the said suit etc., it emerges that a typographical error crept in while drafting the Schedule A and instead of Plot No.57, Veer Colony, Delhi, it was mentioned as Plot No.51, Veer Colony, Delhi.

¶23The error came to notice when an application for final decree was passed and notices were issued to the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners had become owners of different floors of Plot No.57 during the pendency of the partition proceedings. Today, to contend that they were not aware of the proceedings as in the plaint, the number of the properties mentioned as 51 is not acceptable especially at this stage. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court committed no illegality by allowing the application under Sections 152-153 CPC for correction of the property from No.51 to No.57 in Schedule A. It has to be borne in mind that the duty of a Court is to do substantial justice and to not CR%&$%2 25o'O()*o3ndoAno14ero o o o -9-non-suit parties on technicalities. Still further, nobody can be permitted to take undue advantage or benefit of some typographical/technical error in the proceedings. The remedy, if any, with the petitioners was to institute a petition under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC before the Court concerned rather than moving an application that before passing any order on any application, notice be issued to them. The said application was rightly dismissed by the trial Court.

¶24It is to be borne in mind that partition proceedings commenced way back in the year 1982 and they became final from the Supreme Court of India in 2016 only to run into rough weather again on technical issues raised by the petitioners.

¶25In the case of Mohinder Singh and Ors. vs. Teja Singh and Ors. AIR 1979 P&H 47, a suit for possession was filed which was decreed on

31.05.1973. In the execution proceedings, warrant of possession was issued but could not be executed as khasra number was not correctly recorded in the decree sheet. The decree holders filed an application before the Executing Court for the correction of khasra number and consequent issuance of a fresh warrant. It was, however, found that khasra number was correctly mentioned in the decree sheet but was incorrectly mentioned in the plaint and the number mentioned in the decree sheet was as mentioned in the plaint. Accordingly, a prayer was made for correction in the plaint and consequently in the judgment and decree. The said prayer was contested on the ground that under Section 152 CPC, only corrections of clerical mistakes in the judgment and decree sheet could be made and mistakes occurring in pleadings could not be corrected. This contention was negated by the Executing Court and the application was allowed leading to the filing of a civil revision before this Court. While examining the provisions of Section 152 CPC and the law on the subject, it was held by a Coordinate Bench of this Court that CR%&$%2 25o'O()*o3ndoAno14ero o o o -10-the mistake in the judgment and decree occurred due to an accidental slip in the plaint. It was held that there was no doubt about the identity of the land in dispute and, therefore, the correction would not affect its identity. It was, therefore, in the interest of justice that the necessary correction be made in the plaint, the judgment and the decree under Section 152 CPC; "8. Section 152, Civil Procedure Code, gives power to rectify any mistake in the judgment, decree or order of errors arising therein from accident slip or omission and in my opinion it must include an accidental slip or omission traceable to the conduct of the parties themselves. No doubt the Court cannot go into the disputed questions regarding the principle in dispute, but if a mistake is so palpable that nobody can possibly have any doubt as to what the parties meant or what the court meant when it passed judgment, decree of order, such correction can be made even under Section 152, Civil Procedure Code. In Bela Devi v. Bon Behary Roy and others , AIR 1952 Calcutta 86, it has been observed that : "A mistake made by the parties in a deed upon which 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 Court can 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 pleading or 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 there could be no reasonable doubt as to what is really intended to say in its judgment, decree or order. It cannot go in to any disputed questions. If there 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 in to disputed questions as to what property was intended to be dealt with by the parties in the deed. But if the mistake is so palpable that CR%&$%2 25o'O()*o3ndoAno14ero o o o -11-nobody can possibly have any doubt as to what the parties meant or what the court meant when it passed its judgment, decree or order, the Court has power to correct the judgment, decree or order which has repeated the mistake. Apart from this exceptional case 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."

¶9In Ghulam Ahmad and another v. Khizar Joo and others , AIR 1960 Jammu and Kashmir 37, plot of land was correctly described except in regard to survey number and it was held that : "Wherein the plaint, the plan attached to it and the decree the property was correctly described by metes and bounds in all the particulars, except in one particular, namely that of correct survey number, and the correction of the survey number would not affect the identity of the plot, it is a fit case where the Court should under Section 52, allow amendment of the survey number in the decree."

¶10In Shahzad Khan v. Pt. Sheo Kumar, AIR 1957 Allahabad 133, V.D. Bhargava, J. observed as under : "Under Section 152, it is open to the appellate Court to correct mistakes and do justice in the case. The Court can under that section amend a clerical error in a decree although the error may have occurred on account of a mistake of the parties themselves in their pleadings and this mistake in the decree was on account of its being copied from the plaint. In such cases it is not necessary to amend the plaint itself. It is enough to amend the decree."

¶11In Lakshmi Nath Sarma Thakur v. Ghanakanti Kalitani, ILR 1951 Calcutta II, 407, it has been held that :\ "Where as a result of mutual mistake, a wrong plot number was inserted in the plaint, but the parties knew about the real subject-matter and rights of third parties had not intervened, CR%&$%2 25o'O()*o3ndoAno14ero o o o -12-the Court has power to amend the decree by substituting the correct plot number."

¶12In Appat Krishna Poduval v. Lakshmi Nathiar and other, AIR 1950 Madras 751, also in similar circumstances, the observation was made as under (at p.752): "Where an application is filed for correction of an error as regards the survey numbers of an item of property in the plaint schedule and the decree schedule and there is no dispute as regards the identity of the property or boundaries to it, the amendment may be allowed under Section 152. The fact that the assignment deed of the property also has the same errors cannot disentitle the applicants to have the errors set right if they are entitled to it under the Code. So, also, the amendment cannot be refused on the ground that the decree sought to be amended is barred by limitation."

¶13In the instant case, the mistake in the judgment and the decree, occurred due to an accidental slip, by writing khasra No. '20' instead of khasra No. '24' in the plaint and its notice was not taken even by the defendants while contesting the suit. Infact there was no about the identity of the land in dispute, as the same had been kept for establishing a school. The correction of the khasra number, thus will not affect the identity of the field in dispute, Justice, therefore, requires that the necessary correction be made in the plaint, judgment and decree, under Section 152, Civil Procedure Code. Thus I do not see any illegality in the order under revision. The result is that this civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs." A similar view was taken by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Pratibha Singh and Anr. vs. Shanti Devi Prasad and Anr. AIR 2003 Supreme Court 643; "When the suit as to immovable property has been decreed and the property is not definitely identified, the defect in the court record CR%&$%2 25o'O()*o3ndoAno14ero o o o -13-caused by overlooking of provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 3 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 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 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 particable, 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 Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code.

¶26Yet another identical view was taken by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shri Jai Singh versus Sardar Singh and others (supra). In that case also, correction in the plaint was sought after the suit had been allowed. After examining the law on the subject, the Coordinate Bench, while discussing the scope of Section 152 CPC, allowed the application.

¶27A Division Bench of this Court held in the case of Pritam Singh versus P.Didar Singh and another (supra) that a Court is empowered to amend clerical errors in a decree under Section 152 CPC even if the error emanates from pleadings. Reference can also be made to the judgments of Coordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Saudagar Singh versus Amir Singh and others, Gulzara Singh and others versus Devinder Singh and others and The Punjab Wakf Board, Chandigarh versus Bakshish Singh (supra) wherein also a similar CR%&$%2 25o'O()*o3ndoAno14ero o o o -14-

¶28It has to be borne in mind that primarily we are dealing with the order allowing the application under Section 152 CPC and not with the rights of the petitioners which they would be free to agitate before the Court concerned in appropriate proceedings including in an application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC. It would, therefore, not be appropriate for this Court to comment upon the issue of lis pendens or the validity of the claim of the petitioners who claim to be bonafide purchasers for consideration without notice of any proceedings.

¶29I have gone through the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners. In view of the judgments referred to in the preceding paragraphs and the categoric view taken therein coupled with the fact that at this stage, this Court is not commenting upon the merits of the claim of the petitioners, the judgments would not come to the aid of the petitioners. Even if the said judgments are considered wherein it has been held that Section 152 CPC cannot be invoked for correction of errors apart from those in judgments and decrees, though they had been given in the particular facts of those cases, Section 153 can always be invoked by a Court to do substantial justice. That being so, I do not find any merit in the present revision petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

04.07.2025 (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) mamta JUDGE