Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 153 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs Swaran Singh & Ors on 8 July, 1996
[21]. In view of land acquisition proceedings, the Land
Acquisition Amendment Act and nature of controversy, it was
held that the Reference Court or the High Court has no power to
entertain the application under Sections 151 and 152 CPC to
correct the decree which has attained finality. In those cases
there was no such dispute with regard to the description of the
land. It was only in the context of entitlement for compensation
on the basis of Amendment Act. Mistakenly described
description of the property can always be corrected by the Court
either suo moto or on the application filed by the parties,
therefore, the ratio of Union of India vs. Swaran Singh's case
(supra) is distinguishable and has no application in the present
controversy.
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Shri Jai Singh vs Sardar Singh And Others on 21 January, 2009
In Shri Jai Singh's case (supra), the suit was decreed
by the lower Appellate Court and thereafter application came to
be filed for correction of description of the property which was
erroneously mentioned due to typographical error in the plaint
and the same was so recorded in the judgment and decree.
Since there was no dispute with regard to the identity of the
7 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 14-04-2019 22:55:52 :::
CR No.6350 of 2017 8
property, therefore, by relying upon Gulazara Singh and others'
case (supra), the Single Bench of this Court allowed correction
of the error in the judgment and decree. In the aforesaid case,
Khasra No.17/2 was inadvertently mentioned as Khasra
No.19/2. The description of the property was mentioned due to
some mistake as Khasra No.19/2 was typed as Khasra No.17/2.
In view of facts and circumstances of the said case which are
akin to the present case, the correction was allowed and the
error mentioned in the description of the plaint, judgment and
decree was rectified/corrected.
The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1962
Gulzara Singh And Ors. vs Devinder Singh And Ors. on 3 July, 2004
In Gulzara Singh and others's case (supra) the
mistake in the plaint and the decree which had occasioned from
an accidental slip or omission at the time of drafting the plaint on
the basis of incorrect jamabandi was corrected and it was held
that the mistake can be corrected by the Court either of its own
motion or on the application of any of the parties.
[18].
Peethani Suryanarayana & Anr vs Repaka Venkata Ramana Kishore & Ors on 12 February, 2009
In Peethani Suryanarayana & Anr.'s case (supra), the
Court was dealing with the proposition wherein it was held that
the amendment in the pleadings can be allowed, even after
passing of the decree, if no prejudice is going to the caused to
the parties. Wrong description of the property in the plaint can
be corrected even after passing of final decree. In the cited
case, Town Survey No.462 was mistakenly mentioned in the
preliminary decree and also in final decree in place of Town
Survey No.463. The same was the result of typographical
mistake. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the correction can be
ordered as it was not the case of the parties that Town Survey
No.462 was the joint family property or the subject matter of the
9 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 14-04-2019 22:55:52 :::
CR No.6350 of 2017 10
suit. The factual error was liable to be corrected. Missed
description of the property in the plaint and the decree can be
allowed under the provision of Section 152 CPC. The mistake
could be either of the Court or it could be the result of mistake
inadvertently committed in the pleadings that gets transported to
all other subsequent proceedings. The party applying for
correction does not really substitute different property or new
property other than the subject matter of the suit.
[20].