LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus DARSHAN SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B ST A TE OF PUNJAB v. • I DARSHAN SINGH OCTOBEI,l.)9, ·2003 [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND,ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] - . - . - ,,- . ~ . Code of Civil Procedure, l908-Section 152-Exercis~ pf po,wer under-Scope of-Held, the exercise of power under this Section contemplates correction of mistakes by Court.of it~ ministerial actions and • . ~ - ~ , I . . ' - , . C does not contemplate of passing effective judicial orders after the judgment, decree or order-It is neither' to be equated ·~ith ihe power ofr.;iew nor can be said to be akin to revi~w;_The pr~vision 'cannot be invoked t~ t •', • -- 'I •" j • '. :! ' modify, alter or add to the terms of the original judgment, decree or order-Omission sought to.be corrected which goes to the merits of the D case is beyond the scope 1 of Section .152. Maxim : 'actus curriae neminem gravabit'-An act of Court shall prejudice no man-Jn the context of Section 152, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Discussed E , Respondent was initially employed as a Senior Compositor in the Govt. Press having been appointed in 1970. He was removed form service by order dated 13.3. 77. Respondent made several representations to the Govt. and by order dated 14.2.79 he was appointed as a Junior Compositor on temporary basis as a new appointee. Sebsequently F respondent filed a suit in the Court of Senior Subordinate Judge for a declaration that the order dated 13.3. 77 removing him from service was unconstitutional, illegal, malafide and discriminatory with a further prayer for a declaration that he was entitled to have his pay fixed in the appropriate scale by counting the period of his alleged forced absence. The suit was dismissed. Pursuani thereto, an appeal G was filed before Additional District Judge, being the First Appellate Court, which was allowed. The First Appellate Court made a further order that it was for the department to grant him or not to grant him increments for the past service rendered by him or to decide regarding his promotion. Subsequently the First Appellate Court deleted the H aforesaid directions on an application by the respondent under Section 1042 ST ATE v. DARSHAN SINGH 1043 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Two second appeals were A filed by the State, one against the original judgment of the First Appellate Court being RSA 3618/87 and the other against the order under Section 152 of the Code modifying the judgment being RSA , 1472/88. By a consolidated judgment, High Court dismissed both the appeals. Hence the present appeals. On behalf of the State, it was contended that there was no , challenge in fact to the fresh order of appointment; that it was not open to the First Appellate Court or the High Court to make out a new case B for interference; that the declaratory suit was filed by the respondent beyond the period of limitation; that there was no scope for amending 'C the order in the manner done in purported exercise of power under Section 152 of the Code. Allowing the appeal against RSA 1472/88 and dismissing the appeal against RSA 3618/87, the Court D HELD : 1.1. Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. The exercise of this power contemplates the correction of E mistakes by the Court of its ministerial actions and does not contemplate of passing effective judicial orders after the judgment, decree or order. The settled position of law is that after the passing of the judgment, decree or order, the same becomes final subject to any further avenues of remedies provided in respect of the same and the very court or the tribunal, on mere change of view, is not entitled to vary the terms of F the judgments, decrees and orders earlier passed except by means of review, if statutorily provided specifically therefor and subject to the conditions or limitations provided therein. The powers under Section 152 of the Code 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 G concerned under the guise of invoking alter the result of the judgment earlier rendered, in its entirety or any portion or part of it. The corrections contemplated are of correcting only accidental omissions or mistakes and not all omissions and mistakes which might have been , committe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.