Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Kumar Keshwani vs Kishan Lal Vishwakarma on 10 April, 2018
CR No.581/2017
--1-
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
S.B. : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VANDANA KASREKAR
CIVIL REVISION NO. 581 OF 2017
Suresh Kumar Keshwani
vs.
Kishan Lal Vishwakarma
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri D. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri G. P. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(10/04/2018) The applicant has filed the present revision challenging the order dated 26/10/2017 passed by 18 th Additional District Judge, District Jabalpur in MJC No.10/2014 thereby rejecting an application preferred by the applicant under Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent has filed a civil suit for declaration, partition and possession in respect of house Nos.183, 184 and 185 situated at Cherital, Jabalpur. The said civil suit was decreed vide judgment CR No.581/2017
--2- and decree dated 17/11/2006 in which this Court has held that the sale deed which has been executed by the parties were void under the law and the defendant did not get any right, title and interest in the suit property. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the applicant has preferred an appeal before this Court which was registered as F.A. 139/2007. This Court vide judgment and decree dated 12/09/2011 has set aside the order passed by the trial Court and held that both the sale deeds are valid under the law. The plaintiff/respondent thereafter filed execution proceedings against the applicant. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the present applicant came to know that new number of old house No..184 A, B, C was wrongly mentioned and area of the house No. 184 A B C was not mentioned in the decree. The correct new number of the lod house no.184 A, B, C is 2066, 2067, 2068 and area 1073 square feet, therefore, he filed an application under Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC for correcting the said house numbers in the decree for proper adjudication of the execution proceedings. The decree holder i.e. respondent has denied all the averments in the application but he CR No.581/2017
--3- executed that new number of old house No.184 A B C is 2066, 2067 & 2068. After hearing both the parties, the learned executing Court vide order dated 26/10/2017 has rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by that order, the applicant has filed the present revision before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the Executing Court has erred in rejecting the application preferred by the applicant under Section 152 of the CPC. He submits that in the judgment, wrong house number was mentioned, therefore, he submitted an application for correcting the same, however, the executing Court has erroneously dismissed the said application. He further submits that the Executing Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested in it by law. He further relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Rishabh Kumar Jain vs. G.C. Jain, ILR 2013 M.P., 2977, as well as the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Sonulal and others vs. Janki Bai and others, 2002(1) MPHT 131.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports the order passed by the trial Court and submits CR No.581/2017
--4- that the trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application preferred by the applicant under Section 152 of the CPC.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The applicant herein has filed an application before the trial Court for correcting the house number in the decree. According to him, the correct number of the house is 2066, 2067 & 2068. This Court in the case of Rishabh Kumar Jain (supra) in para 5 has held as under :-
"5. .............................................. If by mistake the wrong house number has been mentioned in a decree then the trial Court was duty bound to correct such mistake exercising the powers conferred on him under Section 152 read with Section 151 of CPC to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of law. It is not expected from report particularly when a decree is to be passed with respect to a specific house number and the said house number has CR No.581/2017
--5- incorrectly been mentioned in the preliminary decree and also in the final decree, in such circumstances merely having a commissioner's report indication the property of the red hedges would not be sufficient though in the commissioner's report the house number has been wrongly shown as 24 & 25. In the considered opinion of this Court, it will create the multiplicity of the proceedings and the parties may have an option to abuse the process of law; however, on having knowledge about the mistake, it is the duty of the Court to rectify such mistake even by its own motion. In this regard, reliance may be made on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash Marwaha (Dead) through LRs and others vs. Jagdish Lal Marwaha (Dead) through LRs, (2009) 1 SCC
510. In such circumstances, the rejection of the application under Order 20 Rule 18 read with CR No.581/2017
--6- Section 151 & 152 of CPC by the trial Court while passing the order impugned is wholly unsustainable in law and the argument of non- applicant is hereby repelled."
As per the said judgment, if the house numbers are not mentioned correctly in the preliminary decree and also in final decree then it is the duty of the Court to rectify such mistake. In the present case also, preliminary decree was drawn and thereafter the final decree was also framed. In both the decrees, the house number is incorrectly mentioned, the petitioner therefore filed an application for correcting the said mistake.
6. In such circumstances, the trial Court should have allow the application submitted by the applicant and correct the house number in the decree. This Court in the case of Sonulal & others (supra) in para 3 has held as under :-
"3. ............................................... The Court has the inherent power to correct its mistake at any time. In this case the decree passed by the First CR No.581/2017
--7- Appellate Court did not correctly state what the Court actually decided. It is a well settled principle that the act of the Court should not prejudice any party. It is a maxim of law that the act of the Court shall prejudice no man - actus curiae neminem gravabit. Every Court has an inherent power to vary or amend its own decree or order so as to carry out its meaning. This power can be exercised at any time. The error or omission is in the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court and, therefore, it should correct it. Even if it is held that the decree of the First Appellate Court has merged in the decree of this Court passed in appeal this Court can direct that Court to correct its error."
As per the said judgment, every Court has an inherent power to vary or amend its own decree or order so as to carry out its meaning. This power can be exercised at any time. CR No.581/2017
--8-
7. In light of the aforesaid judgment, the order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable. Accordingly, this revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 26/10/2017 passed by the Executing Court is hereby set aside. The application preferred by the applicant under Sections 151 & 152 of the CPC is hereby allowed, with not order as to costs.
(MS. VANDANA KASREKAR) JUDGE manju Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY Date: 2018.04.11 16:06:22 +05'30' CR No.581/2017
--9-