LAKSHMI RAM BHUYAN versus HARI PRASAD BHUYAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 275 · Decided: 20-11-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

LAKSHMI RAM BHUY AN 
A 
V, 
HARi PRASAD BHUY AN AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 20. 2002 
[R.C LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ,] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure 1908: 
Section 152-Amendment of judgment-Appeal allowed by High Court 
reversing judgments of Courts belo~~But did not pass decree and sent back C 
the case to trial court for passing the san1e-Rules showing that direCtion 
could be given to trial Court for drawing the decree not brought to the notice 
of the Court-Held, ordinarily decree should have been drawn up by High 
Court-Successful party can have recourse io the Section to vary its judgment-
Section enables the Court to vary its judgn1ent so as to give effect to its D 
n1eaning and intention, subject to .the only /in1itation that the amendment is 
n1ade without causing injustice. 
Order XX, XU, Rule 3 I-Judgment and decree-Drajiing of-The Court 
decreeing the suit and appellate Court disposing of appeal against disniissal 
of suit should e.Yan1ine the reliefs and then construct the operadve part of the E 
judgn1ent in such manner as to bring the reliefs granted in confor111ity with the 
fin,iings arrived at. 
The suit filed by plaintiff-respondent was dismissed by Trial Court 
and appeal against it was also dismissed by Appellate Court, Second appeal 
was allowed by High Court High Court sent back the case to the original F 
court for preparation of tho decree accordingly, Civil Judge while ordering 
decree to be drawn up held that High Court in its judgment in Second 
appeal desired that decree should be prepared by trial court regarding 
all tne reliefs claimed and directed the decree to be drawn incorporating 
all the reliefs which were so•1ght for in the plaint, Against the orders of G 
the Civil Judge, judgment-debtor (appellant) filed revision, which was 
dismissed by High Court Hence the present appeal, 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
275 
H 
276 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C:R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1. The plaintiff being dominus litus, enjoys a free hand in 
couching the relief clause in the manner he pleases and cases are not 
wanting where the plaintiff makes full use of the liberty given to him. It 
is for the Court, decreeing the suit, to examine the reliefs and then 
construct the operative part of the judgment in such manner as to bring 
B . the reliefs granted in conformity with the findings arrived at on different 
issues and also the admitted facts. The Trial Court merely observing in 
the operative part of the judgment that the suit is decreed or an appellate 
court disposing of an appeal against dismissal of suit observing the appeal 
is allowed, and then staying short at that, without specifying the reliefs to 
which the successful party has been found entitled, tantamounts to a failure 
C on the part of the author of judgment to discharge obligation cast on the 
Judge by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. (281-C-EJ 
1.2. The Single Judge allowing the second appeal, should have clearly 
and precisely stated the extent and manner of reliefs to which the plaintiffs 
were found to be entitled in his view of the findings arrived at during the 
D course of the appellate judgment. The parties, the draftsman of decree and 
the executing Court cannot be left guessing what was transpiring in the 
mind of the Judge decreeing the suit or allowing the appeal without further 
placing on record the reliefs to which the plaintiffs are held entitled in 
the opinion of the Judge. [281-G, HJ 
E 
2. Ordinarily the decree should have been drawn up by the High 
Court. Ariy rules framed by the High Court which countenance such a 
practice as directing the Trial Court to draw up a decree in conformity 
with the judgment of the High Court has not been brought to the notice 
of the Court. The successful party has no other option but to have recourse 
F 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 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 
G omission in manifesting the intention of the Court by couching the reliefs 
to which the plaintiffs were entitled in the event of their suc~eeding in the 
suit. Section 152 enables the Court to vary its judgment so as to 

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