LexNIYAMAT ALI MOLLA versus SONARGON HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B NIYAMAT ALI MOLLA v. SONARGON HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. & ORS. OCTOBER 12, 2007 [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) Code of Civil 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 of decree-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. 15 2 of the Code-By allowing the amendment defendant would not be misled nor any p substitution of property 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 \ i .... NIY AMAT ALI MOLLA v. SON ARGON HOUSING CO· 347 OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. ""' ' r "Doctrine of actus 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 of the 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 of the 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 E impleaded as parties in the suit and an ex parte decree was obtained 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 of Civil 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 of the 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 bo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.