Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamlesh vs Hukumchand on 2 April, 2026
1 CR-153-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 2 nd OF APRIL, 2026
CIVIL REVISION No. 153 of 2006
KAMLESH
Versus
HUKUMCHAND
Appearance:
Shri Avinash Zargar - Advocate for petitioner.
ORDER
By way of this petition, challenge is made to the order passed by the trial Court dated 25.01.2006, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff/decree holder for amendment/correction in the decree under Sections 151 and 152 CPC has been rejected.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a suit was filed for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sale and the agreement to sale was for Survey No.535 containing certain four boundaries and describing the said four boundaries, a suit was filed which was ultimately decreed by the trial Court by the judgment and decree dated 10.05.2003 but when the said judgment and decree was put to execution, it was revealed that the land is not available with the said four boundaries and the land which is available in Survey No.535 has altogether different four boundaries and, therefore, application under Sections 151/152 CPC was filed for amendment of the decree because the decree mention only those four boundaries which Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-04-2026 11:24:54 2 CR-153-2006 were mentioned in the instrument i.e. agreement to sale dated 05.06.2000.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the the case of In re: Km. Mona d/o Late Brij Raj Singh, reported in 2005 SCC OnLine All 1273 so also judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Revision No.256 of 2023 (Butto Bai and another vs. Dumri and others) to contend that the Courts should adopt pragmatic and lenient approach and the fruits of long drawn litigation should not be denied to the parties on account of such errors and the errors need not only be the error of the Court, but can also be errors in drafting the pleadings, which may be inadvertent errors and that can be corrected. Therefore, it is argued that in the present case, it was an error of drafting of the plaint which could be corrected under Section 151/152 CPC and the trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it.
4. Upon considering the aforesaid assertion, it is seen that the suit was filed on the basis of agreement to sale dated 05.06.2000 for Survey No.535 area 0.84 hectare containing the following four boundaries:-
East : Agricultural Land of Dayaram Rewaram
West : Agricultural Land of Poonam Chand Thakur
North : Agricultural Land of Babulal
South : Agricultural Land of Seetaram
5. The instrument had the aforesaid four boundaries and the aforesaid four boundaries were mentioned in the plaint also.
6. The defendants appeared in the suit and filed written statement mentioning that there is no land available with them with the aforesaid four Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-04-2026 11:24:54 3 CR-153-2006 boundaries and the land which was available with the aforesaid four boundaries has already been sold by them vide sale deed dated 01.05.1998. The sale deed dated 01.05.1998 has been placed for perusal of this Court and the said sale deed is for Survey No.477 area 0.61 hectare having following four boundaries:-
East : Agricultural Land of Dayaram
West : Agricultural Land of Poonam Bhai
North : Agricultural Land of Babu Bhamta
South : Agricultural Land of Seetaram
7. Therefore, it was not a case of simpliciter error or omission in the judgment or decree or in the pleadings of the parties but it was a case where the instrument on the basis of which the suit had been filed also allegedly contains erroneous four boundaries.
8. Therefore, in the instant case, prayer ought to have been made before the trial Court in terms of Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act and that jurisdiction was vested in the trial Court only. Upon failure of the petitioner to seek rectification in the instrument which could have been through fraud or mutual mistake of the parties, the jurisdiction was with the trial Court only and it could be done only after recording evidence as to the actual four boundaries of the land available with the defendants and after considering the real intention of the agreement to sale.
9. The jurisdiction, therefore, was vested in the trial Court but during course of trial of the suit which was under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act and that jurisdiction which was vested with the trial Court while deciding Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-04-2026 11:24:54 4 CR-153-2006 the suit, cannot be said to be available to the trial Court while deciding an application under Section 152 CPC which is only for correction of errors, omissions or slips.
10. The failure of the petitioner to seek appropriate relief in the suit cannot be cured by way of application under Section 152 CPC, as it is beyond the scope of sections 151/152 CPC.
11. Therefore, no indulgence can be caused in the present revision petition. The same fails and is dismissed.
12. However, if the petitioner has any other remedy available against the judgment and decree, he is at liberty to avail the said remedy.
(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE psm Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-04-2026 11:24:54