LexSRIHARI (DEAD) THROUGH LR. SMT. CH. NIVEDITHA REDDY versus SYED MAQDOOM SHAH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 7 S.C.R. 864 SRIHARI (DEAD) THROUGH LR. SMT. CH. NIVEDITHA REDDY v. SYED MAQDOOM SHAH & ORS. (Civil Appel Nos. 2352-2354 of 2008) · SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.) C Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 152 - Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders - Interpretation of s. 152 - Held: Section 152 is meant for correcting the clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission - Power u/s. 152 D is neither similar to power of review nor can be compared with the power of review - Corrections contemplated under the section are of correcting only accidental omissions or mistakes - Omission sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of s. 152 - On facts, E the High Court rightly allowed the applications by the parties concerned holding that the preliminary decree be amended allotting and dividing the shares amongst them, as the suit already stood decreed for partition. F Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. From the language of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also from the interpretation, it is clear that the section is meant for correcting the clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or G orders or errors arising therein from any accidental ·slip or omission. The powers u/s. 152 are neither to be equated with the power of review nor can be said to be akin to review or even said to clothe the Court under guise of invoking after the result of the judgment earlier . H 864 SRIHARI (DEAD) THROUGH LR. SMT. CH. NIVEDITHAREDDY v. 865 SYED MAQDOOM SHAH rendered. The corrections contemplated under the A section are of correcting only accidental omissions or mistakes and not all omissions and mistakes. The omission sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of Section 152. The expression accidental slip or omission has been 8 explained as an error due to a careless mistake or ; omission unintentionally made. [Para 12, 13] [874-E-H; 875-C] 1.2. Had the appellate court, not decreed the suit with discussion of evidence after rejecting the plea of the C defendant No.12 as to his claim of ownership, and had the defendants 1 to 11 not pleaded for separation of their shares with admission of share of the plaintiff as decreed by the appellate court, it could have been said that the High Court erred in declaring shares of the plaintiff or the D defendants by resorting to Section 152. But since there is a clear finding of shares of the parties in the judgment, as such by. clarifying the decree by the impugned order, the High Court committed no mistake of law. Sub-rule (2) of r.18 of Or.XX clearly indicates that in the preliminary E decree not only the right of the plaintiff but rights and interests of others can also be declared. [Para 20] [877- D-F; 878-8, C] 1.3. The basis of provision of Section 152 is found on the maxim 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' i.e. an act F 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 G a finding which does not exist in the body of the judgment sought to be corrected. [Para 22] [878-E-G] State of Punjab vs. Darshan Singh 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 1042:(2004) 1 SCC 328; Bijay Kumar Saraogi vs. State of H 866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 7 S.C.R. A Jharkhand (2005) 7 sec 748; U.P.SRTC VS. lmtiaz Hussain 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 725:(2006) 1 SCC 380 - relied on. Shub Karan Bubna alias Shub Karan vs. Sita Saran Bubna and Others 2009 (14) SCR 40:(2009) 9 SCC 689; Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. V State of Orissa and Anr. B AIR 1966 SC 1047 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 1042 Relied on Para 12 c (2005) 1 sec 148 Relied on Para 12 AIR 1966 SC 1047 Referred to Para 13 2009 (14) SCR 40 Referred to Para 21 D 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 725 Relied on Para 22 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.2352-2354 of 2008 From the Judgment and Order dated 21-04-2005 of the E High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in A.S.M.P. No. 11880 of 2004 and 1098 and 1099 of 2005 in A.S. No. 734 of 1991. K. Raghavacharuvlyu, J
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.