Kerala High Court
Sankaran Nambudiripad vs Raman Nambudiri And Ors. on 18 November, 1959
Equivalent citations: AIR1961KER13, AIR 1961 KERALA 13, 1960 KER LJ 148 1960 KER LT 890, 1960 KER LT 890
JUDGMENT P.T. Raman Nayar, J.
1. The only decree sought by the petition of compromise -- in fact it purported to bE under Order XXIII, Rule (1) C. P. C. -- and the only decree passed was one of dismissal of the suit. No. clerical error is alleged so far as the decree is concerned, and it seems to me that the correction of an alleged clerical error in the agreement of compromise which was filed into court and merely recorded by it cannot fall within the scope of Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Code. A separate suit for rectification on the ground of mutual mistake -- and as pointed out by Beaumont, C. J. in Karimunnissa Begum v. Mir Jamaluddin, AIR 1937 Bom 457 a clerical error can hardly fail to be that -- would appear to be proper remedy. I fail to see why, in departure from the normal procedure, the court should act under Sections 151 to 153 of the Code to correct an error in a proceeding which though formally recorded in the suit is really an extraneous proceeding. Rikhi Rain v. Radhe Shiam, AIR 1933 All 608 and AIR 1937 Bom 457 relied upon by the petitioner are cases where the error existed in the order or decree of the Court, and, in fact, these cases seem to imply that it is only where an error exists in the compromise as embodied in an order or decree of the court that resort can be had to the simpler procedure of an amendment under Section 151 to 153 of the Code instead of a suit for rectification. Ramayya Pillai v. Ratnaswami Pillai 1958-2 Mad LJ 514 : (AIR 1959 Mad 194) has no bearing for there the error existed only in the decree and not in the compromise agreement.
2. I think the court below was right in dismissing the petitioner's application for amendment of the compromise agreement.
3. I dismiss the petition with costs.