P PRASAD Vs. SHIRDI ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) an application came to be filed by the plaintiff under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the code"). The suit had been decreed and the plaintiff claimed that while deciding the issue with respect to interest, the trial court had held that the plaintiff was entitled for interest @ 12% p.a. from 16.3.1998 on the balance amount, but while passing the decree the court had staled that the plaintiff was entitled to receive the balance amount of rs.3,60,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decree. Since the plaintiff had been held entitled to interest from 16.3. 1998, the interest restricted from the date of decree i.e., 19.3.2003 was a mistake within the meaning of Section 152 of the code. The trial court allowed the application and corrected the decree and held that the plaintiff was entitled to interest from 16.3.1998. The revision petition has been filed against this order.

(2.) even after holding that the plaintiff was entitled to interest from a particular date, the trial court could restrict the payment of interest from a subsequent date. Section 152 of the code lays down:

(3.) the Section makes it clear that clerical error or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders can be corrected by the court at any time. Such error or mistake should be either clerical or arithmetical or should be accidental slip or omission. The principles laid down in the Section are based upon the principle that a mistake committed by the court, either of clerical or arithmetical nature, should not prejudice anybody and basically this is a ministerial action which can only be corrected. In a judgment reported in Dwaraka Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 1999 (1) Supreme 429, important principles were laid down by the supreme court while analyzing Section 152 of the code viz., (i) exercise of power under Section 152 of the code contemplates the correction of mistakes by the court of its ministerial actions and does not contemplate of passing effective judicial orders after the judgment, decree or order and (2) the Section cannot be pressed into service to correct an omission which is intentional, how erroneous that may be. The Supreme Court held in para-6 :