GOVINDI BAI Vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR
LAWS(RAJ)-1952-11-17
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on November 11,1952

GOVINDI BAI Appellant
VERSUS
MAHENDRA KUMAR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

APPASA ROWTHER VS. MUHAMAD ROWTHEN [REFERRED TO]
(BOHRA) HUKUM SINGH VS. SURAJPAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Sharma, J. - (1.)IN a suit filed by the opposite party on the basis of a bond and in the alternative on the basis of ikrarnama, the opposite party prayed in the first instance that a decree be given on the basis of the bond and in that case the amount decreed should be Rs. 1182/4/ -. IN the alternative he prayed that if the previous bond be held to be superseded by the subsequent ikrarnama a decree for Rs. 599/- principal and Rs. 114/4/- interest total Rs. 713/4/- be passed. The learned Civil Judge who tried the case held that the previous bond should not be enforced in view of the subsequent agreement by which it was superseded. He, therefore, gave the plaintiff a decree on the basis of the subsequent ikrarnama. IN the operative portion, however, the learned Civil Judge made a mistake of putting down the amount which was due on the original bond and not on the subsequent ikrarnama which was found to be enforceable.
(2.)THE defendant Mst. Chotti made an application under sec. 152 of the Civil Procedure Code before the Civil Judge that in both the judgments and the decree, an accidental slip has been made inasmuch as the figure of Rs. 1182/4/- had been put down in the operative portion in place of the figure of Rs. 713/4/ -. THE learned Civil Judge, however, dismissed the application on the ground that the decree was in conformity with the judgment and could not, therefore, be corrected under sec. 152 Civil Procedure Code. Against this order the defendant Mst. Chotti came in revision to this Court. Pending the revision Mst. Chotti died and her daughter Mst. Govindi has been brought on the record without any objection on behalf of the opposite party.
I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties. Mr. P. D. Mathur appearing on behalf of the applicant has argued that the mistake found place in the judgment as well as in the decree and it was a clerical mistake or at the most an accidental slip. The learned Civil Judge, therefore failed to exercise the jurisdiction when he held that he could not correct the decree as it was in conformity with the judgment. He has relied upon the ruling in the cases of (Nohra) Hukum Singh vs. Surajpal Singh and another (1) (A. I. R. 1923, All. p. 337.), and Appasa Rowther and others vs. Muhamad Rowthen and others (2) (A. I. R. 1927, Mad. p. 435. ). In the former case there was a mistake in the appellate judgment and the decree inasmuch as in the operative part some property which was held not to be saleable was put down as saleable. It was held that it was only an accidental slip that the property which was held not to be saleable in the body of the judgment was mentioned as saleable in the operative part. In the case of Madras High Court referred to above, the survey number of the plot which was in dispute was wrongly mentioned in the judgment as well as the decree and it was held that the court had power under sec. 152 to correct the mistake in both the documents. To my mind the mistake which has crept in the operative portion of the judgment as well as the decree is a clerical mistake or at the worst an accidental slip. The whole tenor of the judgment shows that the court passed the decree for the sum which was due on the basis of the subsequent agreement. Unfortunately it was put down by mistake in the operative portion that the said sum was Rs. 1182/4/- instead of Rs. 713/4/ -. The mistake in the judgment as well as the decree can be corrected under sec. 152 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Civil Judge thought that he was being asked only to correct the mistake in the decree and, therefore, observed that because the decree was in conformity with the judgment, the mistake could not be corrected. He refused to exercise his jurisdiction under sec. 152 of the Civil Procedure Code under an erroneous impression that it was only the decree which was sought to be corrected and not the judgment. This is a case of failure to exercise the jurisdiction which was vested in the lower court and interference can, therefore, be legally made in revision.

The application is allowed. The order of the learned Civil Judge refusing to amend the decree and judgment is set aside and it is ordered that both in the judgment as well as the decree, the figure of Rs. 713/4/- shall be inserted in place of the figure of Rs. 1182/4/ -. As the applicant prayed for substitution of the sum of Rs. 599/- only instead of Rs. 713/4/-, she would get no costs of this revision. The opposite party shall also bear his own costs. .



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.