PEMA BHAVSINGH Vs. DHANYA SALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by the decree-holder in a title suit from an order of the trial Court refusing to correct in exercise of its powers under Section 152, Civil P. C. the decree in one particular, namely, the name of the village in which the suit land is located. The facts are very simple and the obvious requirement of justice is that the correction should be made; but the argument has been as to whether this can be done properly under Section 152. Civil P. C.

(2.) THERE is no doubt that the naming of the wrong village was an accidental slip on the part of the plaintiff at the first instance which has naturally been carried over into the judgment and the decree. But the question is whether the clerical or arithmetical mistakes and accidental slips and omissions mentioned in Section 152 are only those for which the Court is solely responsible, or include those where a party having committed a mistake it has been brought into the Court's orders; two other incidental questions are of academic interest only in this case; firstly, the effect of the phrase "at any time" and secondly, whether or not between the making of the decree and the seeking of the correction the other party has acquired a vested interest in the property If the correction may not be made under section 152, we have to consider whether it could not be made under any other provision.

(3.) THE story as far as we are concerned is extremely simple. The plaintiff who is the applicant here brought a suit for the declaration of his title in respect of two plots bearing Khasra Nos. 236 and 238 in Khata No. 34 in a village about the name of which there was confusion. He now says that the land la situated in village Lunera; but he had by mistake mentioned Isakpurkhedi because the defendant was living there. There was really no contest and the defendant having admitted the claim the suit was decreed on 20-3-1964. This being agricultural land mutation had to be sought and accordingly the appropriate application was made to the tehsildar mentioning of course plot Nos. 236 and 238 of Khata No. 34 in village Isakpurkhedi. After about two years the tehsildar found that the applicant was really meaning this khata and these plot numbers in vill age Lunera; but the decree mentioning Isakpurkhedi he would not effect the mutation till the village name was corrected by the Court that passed the decree. Accordingly the applicant went to the Court about two years after the decree with an application on 2-3-1966 and asked for a correction under Section 152. The trial Court found, which is not disputed, that the lands about which the parties to the suit had had some difference were plot Nos. 236 and 238 in Khata No. 34 in village Lunera and not in Isakpurkhedi; in fact the plot numbers in the khata and the areas all indicate beyond doubt that they are in village Lunera there being no such numbers with these areas in Isakpurkhedi. It was not the case of the defendant either in the trial Court or even here that there were some lands in Isakpurkhedi about which the parties had any difference; still the trial Court would not effect the correction because according to it it was not a mistake of the kind that Section 152 was meant to remedy.