KHUDU MAHTO Vs. BHIM MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Purulia, dismissing an application for the amendment of a decree. The decree in question had been passed in a suit for partition on the basis of the commissioner's report, and after the decree had been passed, possession was delivered to the parties on the basis of the commissioner's report which had been embodied in the decree. The plaintiff thereafter, filed an application under Sections 151 and 152, Civil P. C., for the amendment of the decree, and it was pointed out that the pleader-commissioner whose report had been accepted by the Court and on the basis of whose report the final decree had been passed, had committed a mistake in totalling the areas of the lands. The learned Subordinate Judge rejected the prayer for amendment mainly on the ground that the decree had already been executed.

(2.) I am inclined to agree with Mr. Majumdar that merely because, the decree stood executed the Court below should not have rejected the prayer for amendment. Under Sections 151 and 152, Civil P. C., very wide powers have been given to the Court. Section 151 lays down that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise effect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. It was the duty of the Court to check the arithmetical calculation made by the commissioner before passing the final decree on the basis of the commissioner's report, and if the Court passed a decree without noticing the mistake that had been committed by the Commissioner, then the Court would ultimately be deemed to be responsible for the mistake which bas cropped up in the decree, and under Section 151, Civil P. C., it must correct the mistake committed by it for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. Section 152 lays down that clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion on an application of any of the parties. If the learned Subordinate Judge was not able to detect the mistake himself, he should have corrected the mistake when the plaintiff pointed it out and applied for its correction. The fact that the decree has been executed is of no importance so far as the question as to whether the amendment prayed for should be allowed or not is concerned. The amendment ought to be allowed if it is fit to be allowed in view of the provisions of Sections 151 and 152, Civil P. C., it being another matter as to how the plaintiff will proceed so far as the execution is concerned after the amendment prayed for is made. This application, therefore, Succeeds.

(3.) The application is allowed and the Court below will correct the mistake which has been committed in totalling the areas. There is no appearance on behalf of the opposite party and there will be no order for the costs of this application.