JAYALAKSHMI COELHO versus OSWALD JOSEPH COELHO

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 207 · Decided: 28-02-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

"I· 
-
JAYALAKSHMICOELHO 
A 
v. 
' 
OSWALD JOSEPH COELHO 
FEBRUARY28, 2001 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : 
Section 152-Amendment of Judgments, decrees or orders-Inherent 
powers-Scope of-Held, power of rectification is confined only to clerical or 
C 
arithmetical error or accidental slip or omission on the part of the Court-
Order or decree should contain or omit something which was intended to be 
otherwise-No new arguments or re-arguments on merits required for such 
rectification of mistake. 
Rectification of Decree-Agreement between parties for divorce by mu-
tual consent-Petition filed-Only decree for divorce prayed-Decree granted-
Subsequently, husband filing application for rectification of decree for failure 
fo ask relief.in tenns of agreement-Only mandatory injunctions prayed in 
application-No prayer made either in petition or application for incorporat-
ing terms and conditions of agreement-No averment about any accidental slip 
or omission by the Court-Held, under the facts applicatio~ for rectification of 
decree misconi:eived and liable to be dismissed. 
Appellant-wife and respondent-husband entered into an agreement 
dated 26.7.1991 to dissolve their marriage hy mutual consent which also 
contained clauses settling other issues amicably relating to their properties 
and custody of child, etc. According to the agreement, flat in which parties 
had been residing ou certain terms and conditions, was to be transferred 
by wife in the name or husband. Thereafter, petition for divorce by mutual 
consent was filed by parties wherein relief claimed was specifically for 
decree for divorce alone which was granted by the Family Court. Thereaf. 
ter, respondent moved an application for modification or decree on the 
ground that parties being lay persons faUed to ask relier in terms of 
agreement dated 26. 7 .1991 while passing of earlier decree and made prayers 
for grant or mandatory injunction on the basis of the said agreement. The 
Family Court allowed application for modification and amended decree 
inserting all clauses or agreement dated 26.7.1991 in amended decree. 
207 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
208 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001) 2 S.C.R. 
Appellant-wife filed writ petition against the order of Family Court 
amending earlier decree which was dismissed by the Single ,Judge and 
confirmed in appeal by the Division Bench. Aggrieved by the judgment of 
ihe Division Bench, wife has filed the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. In terms of Section 152 C.P.C., any error occurring in 
the decree on account of arithmetical or clerical error or accidental slip 
may he rectified hy the court. The principle behind the provision is that no 
party should suffer due to mistake of the court and whatever is intended 
by the court while passing the order of decree must be properly reflected 
therein, othecwise it would only he destructive to the principle of advanc-
ing the cause ~f justice. Hence, an unintentional mistake or the Court 
which may prejudice cause of any party must be rectified. [215-E-FJ 
1.2. Such inherent powers would generally be available to all courts 
and authorities irrespective of the fact whether the provisions contained 
under Section 152 C.P.C. 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 he legally satisfied and arrive at a valid finding 
that the order or the decree contaim or omits something which was in-
tended to he othernise, that is to say while passing the decree the court 
must have in its mind that t!te order or the decree should he 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 cine to the fact as to what was intended by the 
court but unintentionally the same does not find mention in the order or 
the judgment or sumethi~g which was not 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 f

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.