12/6/2018 CPC: Section 152, 153 : Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders / General powers to amend | The Practice of Law

CPC: Section 152, 153 : Amendment of judgments,

21st February 2015
decrees or orders / General powers to amend
A brief Note before you proceed to article:
If you are facing any of these issues like (a) Recovery of Moneys (b) Immovable property disputes (c) grievances
against Municipalities & Govts., including challenge to legitimacy of laws etc. (d) grievances against illegalities and
highhandedness of Police like illegal arrests, refusal to register FIR, deliberately flawed investigations, etc (e) False
FIRs (f) False Claims (g) False evidences (h) Grievances against Judges (i) Illegal or perverse Orders of the Courts
/ Tribunals, among others, may see following link https://vakeelkanumber.com/natureofgrievance.php
[https://vakeelkanumber.com/natureofgrievance.php]
or
If you are looking for draft of any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the nature and attribute of any legal
proceeding; or if you want to know the procedure followed in any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the
grounds on which any order of the court / tribunal is challenged; or if you are facing any frivolous litigation, may see
following link https://vakeelkanumber.com/legalproceeding.php [https://vakeelkanumber.com/legalproceeding.php]
Thank you.

Proceed to article

Section 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.

Section 153: General 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.

AIR 1999 SC 1031

Para 6 Section 152, Code of Civil Procedure 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, Court or the
Tribunal becomes functus officio and thus being not entitled to vary the terms of the judgments, decrees and orders earlier
passed. The correction contemplated are of correcting only accidental omission or mistakes and not all omissions and mistake
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 for which the proper remedy for the
aggrieved party is to file appeal or review application. It implies that the Section cannot be pressed into service to correct an
omission which is intentional, how erroneous that may be. It has been noticed that the courts below have been liberally
construing and applying the province of Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC can under the cover of the aforesaid sections modify,
alter or add to the terms of its original judgment, decree or order. In the instant case, the trial Court had specifically held the
respondents-State liable to pay future interest only despite the prayer of the appellant for grant of interest with effect from the
date of alleged breach which impliedly meant that the Court had rejected the claim of the appellant in so far as pendente lite
interest was concerned. The omission in not granting the pendente lite interest could not be held to be accidental omission or
mistake as was wrongly done by the trial Court while order dated 30.11.1973. The High Court was, therefore, justified in
setting aside the aforesaid order by accepting the revision petition filed by the State.

Para 7 The reliance of the learned counsel for the appellant on Jainab Bai case (1969 MPLJ 716) (supra) is misplaced
inasmuch as in that case the aggrieved party had sought for award of interest after the decree, by filing the application under
Section 152, Code of Civil Procedure and under Order 47, Rule (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure The Division Bench relied
upon the decision of Madras High Court in Thirugnanavali Amal V/s. P. Venugopala, AIR 1940 Madras 29, wherein it was held

http://thepracticeoflawjalan.blogspot.com/2015/02/section-152-amendment-of-judgments.html 1/3
12/6/2018 CPC: Section 152, 153 : Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders / General powers to amend | The Practice of Law

that where a mistake had occurred in the decree in spite of mention of the future interest in the judgment, the Court had the
power to rectify the mistake and if it occurred in the decree because of omission of it in the judgment, the mistake could not be
corrected. We agree with the view taken by Madras High Court but cannot subscribe to the general observations made by the
Madhya Bharat High Court in Jainab Bai's case. In Maharaj Puttu Lal V/s. Sripal Singh, AIR 1937 Oudh 191, the Court had
awarded the mesne profits to the decree holder by correction upon satisfaction that the plaintiff had specifically claimed such
profits and its pleader was admitted to have made an oral statement requesting the Court to determine the amount of mesne
profits in the execution department which was accepted but not mentioned in the decree sheet. Under the facts and
circumstances of that case the Court held that such being an accidental omission the same could be corrected in exercise of the
powers vested in the Court under Section 152 of the C.P.C.

Para 8 In Firoz Shaw's case (AIR 1957 Madhya Bharat 50 (supra) future interest was allowed by the Court on being satisfied
that the omission in the decree was accidental and that no grounds existed for the defendant therein to resist the claim of the
decree holder. The West Bengal Financial Corporation's case (AIR 1983 Cal 381) does not in any way help the appellant
inasmuch as in that case the scope of Section 152 was not at all considered as the only point decided was that a plaintiff is
entitled as of right to the grant of interest under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure In view of what we have held in this
case regarding the ambit and scope of Section 152 of the C.P.C., we are of the opinion that view of Madhya Bharat High Court
cannot be held to be based upon sound principles.

AIR 2001 SC 1084

Para 15 As a matter of fact such inherent powers would generally be available to all Courts and authorities irrespective of the
fact whether the provisions contained under Section 152, CPC may or may not strictly apply to any particular proceeding. In a
matter where it is clear that something which the Court intended to do but the same was accidentally slipped or any mistake
creeps in due to clerical or arithmetical mistake it would only advance the ends of justice to enable the Court to rectify such
mistake. But before exercise of such power the Court must be legally satisfied and arrive at a valid finding that the order or the
decree contains or omits something which was intended to be otherwise that is to say while passing the decree the Court must
have in its mind that the order or the decree should be passed in a particular manner but that intention is not translated into the
decree or order due to clerical, arithmetical error or accidental slip. The facts and circumstances may provide clue to the fact as
to what was intended by the Court but unintentionally the same does mention in the order or the Judgement or something which
was intended to be there stands added to it. The power of rectification of clerical, arithmetical errors or accidental slip does not
empower the Court to have a second thought over the matter and to find that a better order or decree could or should be passed.
There should not be re-consideration of merits of the matter to come to a conclusion that it would have been better and in the
fitness of things to have passed an order as sought to be passed on rectification. On a second thought Court may find that it may
have committed a mistake in passing an order in certain terms but every such mistake does not permit its rectification in
exercise of Court's inherent powers as contained under Section 152, CPC. It is to be confined to something initially intended
but left out or added against such intention.

2015 (1) SCC 607

Para 13: Now we have to examine whether by the impugned order, the High Court has only corrected the clerical, arithmetical
or accidental omission in the decree passed or not. To appreciate the same, first we think it necessary to mention as to what the
word "expression accidental omission" means. In Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. V/s. State of Orissa and Another AIR 1966
SC 1047, expression accidental slip or omission has been explained as an error due to a careless mistake or omission
unintentionally made. It is further observed in the said case that there is another qualification, namely, such an error shall be
apparent on the face of the record, that is to say, it is not an error which depends for its discovery, elaborate arguments on
questions of fact or law.

Para 14: Whether the High Court has acted within the scope of Section 152 of the Code or not, we have to see as to what were
the pleadings of parties, what was the decree passed, and what was the correction made in it.

http://thepracticeoflawjalan.blogspot.com/2015/02/section-152-amendment-of-judgments.html 2/3
12/6/2018 CPC: Section 152, 153 : Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders / General powers to amend | The Practice of Law

Para 15: The relevant part in paragraph 12 of the plaint of Original Suit No. 471 of 1987 filed by Khader Nawaz Khan for
partition, reads as under:

" Hence it is prayed that, kindly the suit of the plaintiff be decreed as follows:

a) A preliminary decree be passed declaring the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share in the matrooka properties i.e. land
Survey Nos. 41, 42 and 43 admeasuring Ac 49-24 guntas situated at Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Revenue Mandal,
RR District and a Commissioner be appointed for partition be delivered to the plaintiff to the extent of his share, if due
to any legal hitch the court finds that the property is not partition able then the property be put in auction and sale
proceeds be paid to the plaintiff to the extent of his 1/4th share in the interest of justice.

b) Cost of the suit to be awarded;

c) Any other relief or reliefs which the plaintiff is legally entitled to the same".

Para 22: This Court has earlier also reiterated in U.P.SRTC V/s. Imtiaz Hussain (2006) 1 SCC 380 has reiterated that the basis
of provision of Section 152 of the Code is found on the maxim 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' i.e. an act of Court shall
prejudice no man. As such an unintentional mistake of the Court which may prejudice the cause of any party must be rectified.
However, this does not mean that the Court is allowed to go into the merits of the case to alter or add to the terms of the
original decree or to give a finding which does not exist in the body of the judgment sought to be corrected.

Posted 21st February 2015 by The Practice of Law

Labels: Civil Suit

0 Add a comment

Enter your comment...

Comment as: Karsin Manoch Sign out

Publish Preview Notify me

http://thepracticeoflawjalan.blogspot.com/2015/02/section-152-amendment-of-judgments.html 3/3