SONULAL Vs. JANKI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by the defendants/judgment-debtors against the order dated 6-9-2001 in execution proceedings in Civil Suit No. 35-A of 1981 in the Court of IIIrd Civil Judge, Class-II, Mandla by which it has been held that the decree passed therein is executable.

(2.) THIS civil suit was instituted by Bhaiyalal for possession of the land of Plot No. 50 area 5658 sq. ft. and the houses standing thereon. The Trial Court dismissed it. The First Appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 30-11-1989 in Civil Appeal No. 15-A of 1984 reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court but in the last para did not specifically mention the relief granted to the plaintiff. A perusal of the judgment and specially para 28 shows that the conclusion was that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the land and the houses. An appeal was filed by the defendants before this Court and it was dismissed by the judgment dated 30-7-1998 holding that Bhaiyalal was the owner of the land and the houses in dispute.

(3.) THE difficulty in the execution proceedings seems to have arisen because the decree of the First Appellate Court has not been properly drawn. Order 20 Rule 6, CPC provides that the decree shall agree with the judgment and shall "specify clearly the relief granted". By the Amendment Act of 1976 Rule 6-A has been added in Order 20, CPC. It has been provided that the last paragraph of the judgment shall state in precise terms the relief which has been granted by such judgment. A decree should be drawn up in such a way as to make it self-contained and capable of execution. The relief granted should be clearly and tersely stated. That is also the requirement of Rules 156, 165 and 166 of the Rules and Orders (Civil) framed by the High Court. The First Appellate Court in the present case did not do its duty properly and that has given rise to all the confusion at the time of execution of the decree. It was its duty to correct its mistake when it was brought to its notice by an application under Section 152, CPC by the decree holder. That application was rejected by order dated 9-8-2000 on the ground that the mistake sought to be corrected is not "clerical or arithmetical" and the decree of the First Appellate Court has merged in the decree of this Court. The Court has the inherent power to correct its mistake at any time. In this case the decree passed by the First 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 a 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.