Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yatindra Singh Mawai vs Kaushlendra Singh on 11 May, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15503
1 MP-2541-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 11th OF MAY, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 2541 of 2026
YATINDRA SINGH MAWAI AND OTHERS
Versus
KAUSHLENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Santosh Agrawal - Advocate for petitioners- defendants No. 1 to
4.
Shri Sanjay Singh Tomar- Advocate for respondent No.2 as well as
for proforma respondents No.3 to 9.
ORDER
The present miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by petitioners/defendants No.1 to 4 being aggrieved by the order dated 26.02.2026 passed by First Civil Judge, Junior Division, District Morena in MJC No.109/2025, whereby the application filed under Section 151 read with Section 153 of CPC seeking correction of typographical error in the compromise application preferred under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC has been rejected.
2. The facts giving rise to present petition, in short, are that plaintiffs (herein respondents No. 1 and 2) instituted a civil suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the present petitioners and proforma respondents (herein respondents No. 3 to 9) on the basis of a Will dated Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 12-May-26 04:49:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15503 2 MP-2541-2026 16.02.2021 allegedly executed by Late Neeraj Devi W/o Nirottam Singh. It is undisputed that the plaintiffs and defendants are successors and legal heirs of Late Nirottam Singh. During pendency of civil suit, all parties entered into a lawful compromise and accordingly submitted an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC before the trial Court. As per the compromise, land bearing Survey No.294/3 area 0.213 hectare, Survey No.305/1 area 0.174 hectare and Survey No.318/2 area 0.512 hectare situated at Village Badfara, Tahsil Ambah, District Morena was allotted to defendants No.1 to 4 present petitioners in accordance with partition proceedings conducted by the Tahsildar in Case No.98/2021-22/A-27 dated 23.03.2022. The Fard Batankan formed part of compromise application. However, due to a typographical and clerical error in paragraph No.3 of compromise application, the word "plaintiffs" was inadvertently mentioned in place of "defendants No.1 to 4". Except the aforesaid survey numbers, separate properties had already been allotted to plaintiffs in another portion of compromise application. Thereafter, statements of parties were recorded and the compromise decree was passed on 17.07.2025. Subsequently, upon noticing the typographical mistake, all parties jointly preferred an application under Section 151 read with Section 153 CPC seeking correction of the inadvertent error in the compromise application and consequential decree. The trial Court, however, rejected the said application vide order dated 26.02.2026 primarily on the ground that the compromise application had already been signed by the parties. Hence, the present petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that the learned trial Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 12-May-26 04:49:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15503 3 MP-2541-2026 Court has committed a serious error of law in rejecting the application preferred under Sections 151 and 153 CPC. It is submitted that Section 151 CPC preserves the inherent powers of the Court to pass such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Likewise, Section 153 CPC confers general power upon the Court to amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit. It is further contended that a bare reading of paragraph No.3 of compromise application clearly demonstrates that due to a typographical mistake, the word "plaintiffs" was typed in place of "defendants No.1 to 4". In the same compromise application, separate land had already been allotted to the plaintiffs and, therefore, there was no occasion to allot the same land again to the plaintiffs in another paragraph. Learned counsel further submitted that Fard Batankan report was also made part of the compromise application, wherein the land bearing Survey No.294/3 area 0.213 hectare, Survey No.305/1 area 0.174 hectare and Survey No.318/2 area 0.512 hectare ad-measuring total area 0.899 hectare was specifically allotted to defendants No.1 to 4/petitioners. Paragraph No.3 of compromise application also categorically states that the compromise was entered into in accordance with the Fard Batankan. It is also submitted that all parties had jointly moved the application seeking correction of typographical mistake and there was no dispute amongst the parties regarding the identity or allotment of property. Despite this, the trial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it and rejected the application, thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioners. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 26.02.2026 be set aside and the application Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 12-May-26 04:49:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15503 4 MP-2541-2026 filed under Sections 151 and 153 CPC be allowed by directing correction in the compromise application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC as well as the consequential compromise decree.
4. Heard learned counsel, perused the impugned order and the documents available on record.
5. From perusal of the compromise application as well as the Fard Batankan report annexed thereto, it is apparent that disputed survey numbers were intended to be allotted to defendants No.1 to 4/petitioners. The mention of word "plaintiffs" in paragraph No.3 of compromise application is evidently a clerical and typographical mistake. Significantly, the compromise application itself separately records allotment of other lands to the plaintiffs. Thus, the intention of the parties becomes abundantly clear from the record itself. It is also noteworthy that all parties jointly preferred the application seeking correction of inadvertent error. There was no dispute regarding identity of property or the terms of compromise. The rial Court ought to have exercised the jurisdiction vested under Sections 151 and 153 CPC to correct the aforesaid mistake so as to secure the ends of justice. The Principal Seat (Jabalpur) of this Court in the case of Butto Bai and Another vs. Dumri and Others, decided on 07.02.2024 in Civil Revision No.256 of 2023, relying upon various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, has held as under:
"........... due to mistake occurred on account of accidental slip, it has been mentioned in plaint as Khasra No.265 in place of Khasra No.165 and the same was not even taken note of by the defendants while contesting the suit. In fact, there was no dispute with regard to identity of land. It has been established in various decisions referred to above that if there is no dispute of identity of land, then Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 12-May-26 04:49:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15503 5 MP-2541-2026 correction of Khasra number can be effected. Therefore, it is required that necessary correction be made in the plaint, judgments and decrees of the trial Court as also of lower Appellate Court under Section 152 of CPC."
6. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that procedural laws are handmaids of justice and not meant to defeat substantive rights of parties, particularly when all parties were ad idem regarding the correction sought. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.02.2026 passed by First Civil Judge, Junior Division, District Morena in MJC No.109/2025 is hereby set aside. The application preferred by the parties under Sections 151 and 153 CPC stands allowed. The learned trial Court is directed to carry out necessary correction in paragraph No.3 of compromise application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC by substituting the words "defendants No.1 to 4" in place of "plaintiffs" and to make consequential correction in the compromise decree dated 17.07.2025.
7. The miscellaneous petition stands allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE MKB Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 12-May-26 04:49:57 PM