SMT. SOORAJ DEVI versus PYARE LAL AND ANR.

Citation: [1981] 2 S.C.R. 485 · Decided: 08-01-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

< 
• 
- ' 
,. 
485 
SMT. SOORAJ DEVI 
v. 
PYARE LAL AND M'R. 
January 8, 1981 
[R. S. SARKARIA AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S. 362-Scope of. 
Whet!Ier the High Court can alfe'J' or review its OlVll judgment in exercise 
of inherent powers under s. 482. 
Words and Phrases-'otherwise pl'ovided by thls Code or by any other lau." 
for the time being in force'-'Clerical or arithmetical error'-Meaning of. 
Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, mandates a court 
not to alter its judgment. It declares that: "save as otherwise provided by this 
Code or by any other law for the tin1e being in force, no Court, when it has 
signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or 
review 
the same e.xcept to correct a clerical or arithnietical error." 
The house property owned by the husband of the appellant was sold in 
a court auction sale and the first respondent purchased 
the property and 
obtained possession through the Civil Court Amin. In his absence, it was 
alleged, that the second respondent (son of the appellant) had removed 
tl1e 
lock and entered into possession. The first respondent, instituted a 
criminal 
proceeding against the second respondent, and he was ultimately convicted and 
sentenced by the High Court under section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, 
with the further direction that 'the house property be restored to the possession 
of the first respondent'. Pursuant to that order the first respondent applied for 
possession, but the appellant objected asserting her right to the property. The 
Magistrate overruled the objection and observed that it was 
open to the 
appe1lant to establish her right by way of a civil suit. This order was upheld 
by the High Court. 
~- -- The appellant thereafter filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Application before 
the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973 
alleging that she was not a party to the criminal proceedings against the first 
respondent and that she was in possession in her own right and 
that the 
earlier order of the High COurt in the criminal proceedings directing restora-
tion of possession to the first respondent be clarified by a declaration that it 
was not binding on her and did not affect her possession. The High Court 
dismissed this application. 
Dismissing the appellant's appeal 
HELD : 1. The High Court was right in declining to entertain the appli-
cation. [489 CJ 
2. "A clerical or arithmetical error" is anl error occasioned by an accidental 
slip or omission of the Court. 
It represents that 
which the court never 
r 
15-57 SC!/81 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
B 
486 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1981) 2 S.C.R, 
A 
intended to say. 
It is an error apparent on the face of the record and does 
not depend for its discovery on argument or disputation. An arithmetical 
error is a mistake of calculation, and a clerical error is a rristake in writing or 
typing. [488 G] 
, 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Another, [1966] 
3 S.C.R. 99 referred to. 
In the instant case \Vhat the appellant sought by the applicatian, was not 
the correction of a clerical or arithmetical error, but a declaration that the 
High Court order in the criminal proceedings rtid not affect her right in the 
house property and that the direction to restore ~ession to• the first respon· 
dent was confined to that portion only of the house property respecting which 
the offence of trespass was committed so that she was not evicted from the 
• 
portion in her possession. This controversy cannot be brought within the des~ 
~\ 
cription "clerical or arithmetical error". [488 D·F] 
3. The inherent power of the Court under section 482 of the Code is not 
contemplated by the saving provision contained in section 362 and, therefore, 
the attempt to invoke that power by the 
appellant can be 
of no 
avail. 
[488H-489A] 
4. The inherent power of the Court cannot be exercised for doing that 
which is specifically prohibited by the Code. [489 BJ 
Sa11katha Singh v. State of U.P. A.I.R. 1962 SC 1208 referred to. 
5. The prohibition in section 362 against the Court altering or reviewing 
its judgment is subject to what is "otherwise provided by this Code or by any 
other law for the time being in force.". These words refer only to those 
provisions where the Court has been expressly authorised by the Code or other 
law to alter or review its judgment. 
[489·B] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :

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