Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs contended that this court has jurisdiction to correct the typographical mistake or accidental slips in the pleadings which led to passing of the decree in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 152 and 153 of the Code, in exercise of such powers, the court has power not only to correct typographical or clerical mistakes of the court but also anterior to the passing of the decree. He relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court Prital Singh v. P. Didar Singh and Anr., 1976 Revenue Law Reporter 586; Kartar Singh v. Harchand Singh and Ors., (1994-1)106 P.L.R. 25, Mohinder Singh and Ors. v. Teja Singh and Ors., A.I.R. 1979 Punjab 47. He also relied upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court as Smt. Daya Wanti v. Yadvindra Public School. Patiala and Ors., (1996-1)112 P.L.R. 208 to contend that dismissal; of appeal in limine will amount to merger of the judgment of the courts below with the order passed by this court and thus the application for amendment of the judgment and decree would be maintainable only before this Court. Learned counsel for the applicants has also relied upon another Division bench judgment of this court as Kehar Singh v. Piara Singh and Anr., (1990-1)97 P.L.R. 29 to contend that the provisions of Section 155-A of the Code of Civil Procedure are the enabling provisions to enable the trial court to exercise the jurisdiction to correct the clerical or typographical mistake even when the appeal is dismissed in limine. It is contended that the Appellate Court which has dismissed the appeal in limine is not devoid or its power to exercise jurisdiction of correction of typographical or clerical mistake in terms of the provisions of Section 153-A of the Code.

8. On the other hand Mr. G.S. Punia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the appeal having been dismissed in limine by this court, the application for correction of clerical or typographical mistake would be maintainable only before the District Judge who has passed a decree of affirmation and not before the learned trial court. It is further contended that the dismissal of appeal In limine does not amount to merger of the decree of the courts below with the order passed by this court in terms of provisions of Section 153-A of the Code and therefore, the application before this court is not maintainable. Reliance was placed upon Kilstoormali and Ors. v. Sattar Mahmood and Ors., A.I.R. 1958 Rajasthan 276 and T.M. Ramakhshnana Chettir alias Mannor Krishnan Chettiar and Ors. v. G. Radhakrishnana Chettiar and Ors., A.I.R. (35)1948 Madras 13 to contend that the clerical and typographical mistake under Section 152 or 153 of the Code which are directly arise out of the proceedings itself and not for correcting errors which are anterior to the proceedings particularly in document upon which suits are brought. Reliance is also placed upon a Full Bench Judgment of Kerala High Court in Kannan and Ors. v. Narayani and Ors., A.I.R. 1980 Kerala 76 to contend that except in cases to which Section 153-A C.P.C. applies, where there has been an appeal the decree under appeal merges in the decree in appeal and it is only the Appellate Court that could correct or amend the decree under Section 152 of the Code. Since the appeal by this Court has been dismissed in limine, therefore, it is the court of District Judge to entertain the application for correction of the judgment and decree.

11. A perusal of the said section would show that it enables the court which has passed the decree to exercise the power of correcting clerical and typographical mistake even though the appeal preferred has been dismissed in limine. Such provisions does not oust the jurisdiction of the appellate court to correct typographical or clerical mistakes. This question has been dealt with by Division Bench of this court in Kehar Singh's case (supra) wherein relying upon the judgment or Allahabad High Court in Ram Bharosey Lal v. Rameshwar Kayal, A.I.R. 1984 Allahabad 187, held that Section 153-A of the Code is enabling Section and does not debar the superior court to exercise its own powers to amend the decree. This Court held to the following effect;

17. It is the case of the plaintiffs that description of the land was taken from the first part of the sale deed dated 22.9.1987 although the second part while describing the land possession of which was handed over, the correct khasra No. 30//22/1 was mentioned. It is further argued that there is no khasra No. 21/1 (9-9) in the jamabandi for the year 1984-85. Thus, it is only typographical mistake in the plaint on account of wrong description in the opening part of the sale deed which led to mistake in the judgment and decree. Therefore, it is only an accidental slip and typographical mistake which can be corrected by this Court.